Rugby beats the shit out of American football.
Discuss.
Printable View
Rugby beats the shit out of American football.
Discuss.
Absolutely not. Your average rugby player would go home crying after one hit from your average football kicker.
aint no football player that could last 5 minutes without a helmet and pads, nevermind 80
I highly doubt that. Have you seen any American football players? I think they'd be just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
I have to agree with wolf. At the lower end of the hardcore scale, weak and tiny rugby players are more hardcore than weak and tiny NFL players, but the NFL monsters could hang with the rugby monsters just fine.
You do realize that the only thing the pads do is protect the person who is hitting, and not the person being hit right? Taking a hit with pads on is just as painful as taking a hit without pads.
exactly, the guy doing the hitting wouldnt have the confidence to tackle without pads. ive played football and rugby and i personally find rugby the most painful and frightening of the two
and thats why i fucking love it
I would tackle people without pads, and if I would, I'm pretty sure that a player at a higher level wouldn't have much of a problem with it.
This is a pretty dumb discussion because the "toughest" sport isn't necessarily the best sport.
But more importantly, on top of that, rugby really isn't a game focused on contact, in the same way that hockey is not a contact-focused sport. Football, on the other hand, requires it. Football players are specialized for their roles; an NFL linebacker doesn't have the build to play rugby, nor is there a single professional rugby player who could be effective as a linebacker (nevermind offensive and defensive line, ha.)
Rugby also has considerably less down-hill running, and therefore considerably less down-hill tackling. That's the reason for a helmet and pads; any idiot can check, make shoestring tackles, or make arm tackles. But line up 245 pounds on either side and let them run straight at eachother and if you aren't wearing pads, you're both going to die.
I cracked my sternum by a similar scenario playing pickup football. The lineman I was assigned to didn't rush, so I was just sitting back watching the play. He was about 15 yards away and started running at me at full force, but I didn't notice. I turned at looked at him right as he was slamming into me at full force. I was on the ground for a while, but eventually got up and downed his dumb ass. He was a 6'8" 400+ pound Puerto Rican, and man it hurt like a bitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
what??Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
i agree with you entirely except on this
there is pretty much nothing else to rugby. without the contact there is no defense, so then every play would be exactly the same and the attacking team would score everytim
Theoretically, you can score in rugby without ever making any contact. Likewise, you can defend in rugby without ever making any contact.
but the same can be said for football. the quaterback could just throw the ball and the other team could theoretically stand and watch it.
also, the only defense in rugby is tackling, which is contact.
The quarterback doesn't have to the throw the ball at all, but there is no way to stop him unless he is forced to the ground.
yeah, same in rugby
no one has to throw the ball, but then the other team has to tackle to defend
Except for rucking, scrumming, and tackling...Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
Physical contact is huge in rugby. Yeah theoretically you can play without tackling and the same could be said about football then.
And about the arguement with pads. I don't know how many times our rugby team has tried recruiting some meaty looking guys that played football and they said they wouldn't play because you tackle/get tackled without pads. Pussies. Our best tackler on our team is a guy that's like 5' 5" and a probably like 130lb max.
Rugby is a game focused on contact, the 'contact area' is the most important part of the game. If you're not good at it, you lose.
And the tackling between the two sports is different. In rugby a massive hit doesn't really help anything. The ultimate goal in the tackle is to turn the ball over, so making sure the tackled player is facing you is important, as is tackling in such a way that the ball might pop out of his hands.
I've not played proper american football so i don't know which is the 'toughest' or whatever, but from what I've watched of both, american football is pretty intense but far less relentless than rugby.
We are not comparing soccer to football here but the more brutal game of rugby (league and union) to the game of football. Your big monsters wouldnt last more than 5 minutes in a rugby game. The amount of tackling and hit ups in rugby is far more than football, the amount of yards run and ball in play is many many many times more than American Football. I can tell you now, you wouldnt even bother looking at retaining any linesman in a game of rugby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
http://blog.wired.com/geekdad/2008/1...ch-action.html
* The first quarter, at the conclusion of the first fifteen minutes of the match, the ball had been in play for a total of three minutes and 10 seconds.
* The second quarter contained two minutes, 58 seconds when the ball was in play
* The third quarter was the most scintillating with three minutes, 25 seconds of action
* The fourth quarter, which included a lot of kneeling to run out the time in the final two minutes, had showcased two minutes and 35 seconds of play
So, during the two hours and 56 minutes the game took to complete, throughout the 60 minutes of regulation time, the ball was in only in play for 12 minutes and 8 seconds.The rest of the time, players were standing around, plays were being reviewed and I was being bombarded by a multitude of beer commercials and truck advertisements.
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3748/498037.jpg
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2008/foo....oher.icon.jpg
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...8heavy.184.jpg
http://www.metrospirit.com/Image/19....am%20Perry.jpg
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/20...amd_kaczur.jpg
http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/...filiate.56.jpg
http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2006/writers/j...ampton_all.jpg[/QUOTE]
Strong first post, but a fail. You realize that the fridge would kill a rugby player the first time he made contact right? Not hurt, kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by monaroCountry
What you're failing to realize is just how athletic some of those "fat" guys are. For a lot of the people who do run a lot, their average practice is very endurance oriented. I doubt that many of them would have troubles playing a full game of rugby.
^ How many of those guys are going to run full force and tackle a person without pads though?
I was thinking about this more last night. The reason you don't see (very often) bone crushing hits in rugby is because it is impracticable. You can easily hurt yourself and the other player. Not to mention that the point of the game is to turn the ball over. This isn't football where you tackle the guy and the play is over. You put everything you got into a tackle but fail to wrap him up and just knock him over he can easily pitch it off to one of his teammates or get up and run.
As for the argument about lineman. Yeah their athletic. But how often do you see them make a huge run and not be winded. They wouldn't be able to play a full match of rugby. They need to have insane about of endurance to be able to do all of that running and hitting. And for their size, I just can't see that happening. And bigger doesn't necessarily mean better on a rugby pitch either.
rugby is constant impact pretty much, the only rest they get is running at another player about to hit you or waiting in a lineout for 10 seconds getting ready to be hit again
and i dont think youre giving rugby players enough credit djwolford. theyre pretty freakin tough, even amateurs and novices.
heck, school kids would probably stand up to that guy. they probably wouldnt hit him back as hard, but they could take a hit and get back up to make ground.
James Harrison did it without a problem.
I like that the example goes for NFL players unable to compete in rugby, but there are few-if-any rugby players that could make or break NFL tackles, either. There are few if any rugby players who could make or shake NFL blocks. Football is a game of specialization.
Now turn around and ask me if a top-tier Wide Receiver, Corner, Safety or Running Back (the positions most similar in physical demands to rugby) could play rugby effectively. Athletically, they'd likely be fine. Position-wise, mentally, they wouldn't.
I mean I think it's funny that there's this talk of injury resilience in rugby, and "toughness," when the worst injuries in football are significantly worse. Google: tyrone prothro injury. Besides, there are plenty of "tough" football players who do play through injuries (Herschel Walker did it famously by putting a separated shoulder back into its socket and playing the next series, as well as Mike Vick, a quarterback playing a full season for the Falcons with both of his shoulders separated.)
Also, it's worth mentioning that rugby players do have a certain toughness in that they don't care about what they look like, which is why they choose not to wear helmets. Helmets to protect the face and eyes (and, later, cranium) are the reason football players wear pads; tacklers lead with their helmets (how to stick a tackle? put your helmet on the ball.) Football players aren't willing to sacrifice their futures to prove they are some form of "masculine." If that's your definition of toughness (not ability or willingness to endure physical pain but willingness to accept unnecessary scarring as a result) then I guess you're right. But that definition is awfully convenient for a rugby argument and awfully worthless for any other application.
rugby players dont want to sacrifice their futures, they just have the common sense to tackle properly, so therefore dont need a helmet.
any big lump of a doofus can run at a guy and hit him hard, provided theyre protected with pads and stuff
no rugby player would go in with his head. and no rugby player longs for scarring. if it comes then fine, i dont mind cuts and bruises
and the fact that the football players have worse injuries (despite having protection) just prooves they are idiots who cant tackle
Imagine a massive Tongan, Samoan or Maori running towards you and trying to take you out its not a fun sight. Now imagine a whole team made out of massive Tongans, Samoans and Maoris. In rugby league the defence and offence MUST be 11 yards apart, many hits happen with a 15-30yard run up so really these guys are hitting each other at full speed. In rugby league its not just arm tackling or tackling the legs, a shoulder charge is absolutely legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rxhbaVwY_s"]YouTube - Mark O'Mealy VS Bryce Gibbs Fight[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moKyPMTlpCc"]YouTube - League - Richard Villasanti's hit on Shane Webcke[/ame]
You could even grab your opponents collar and yank them around like a rag doll.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_f5Rr93v_Q"]YouTube - Gordon Tallis' famous tackle on Brett Hodgson[/ame]
Rugby not a contact/collision sport? Lol I fell off my chair laughing, have you ever seen a game? I suggest that you check out some State of Origin game highlights on youtube. Rugby league and union has allot more tackling and hit ups than football. One player could notch up 75 tackles in one single game in league, far more than football.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
In the early years of american football most of the deaths and severe injuries stemmed from scrums and backward passing, this is why your president nearly banned the game. At that time the game was more like American rugby with plenty of gang tackles, and brutality. The rugby scrum was replaced by the line of scrimmage, forward passing encouraged and the V shape banned. All these banned features are still present in both forms of rugby. Even today scrums are still very deadly with plenty of deaths from broken necks and some punches and headbutts happening unnoticed within the scrum.
Well yeah, but american football teams are full of giant people too. If I had been paying attention I would have been fine. It seems too subjective a disagreement to solve though.
You do realise that a typical rugby league player has far better stamina than your typical soccer player right? I dont think you understand how much running is involved in a typical game of rugby, how there is only one team for attack and defense, how there is basically no rest in between plays, how you can only have 10 interchanges and 4 reserve players on the bench. Perry Williams or the fridge wouldnt last 5 minutes in a rugby game and would get owned in a one on one tackle and a gang tackle.Quote:
Originally Posted by djwolford
William Perry is only 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m) and weighed 382 lbs (173.4 kg), there are rugby players with slightly less weight but taller, more muscular and far more powerful who are better conditioned for severe impacts. If you are after tall and fat people then just look at those rejected by rugby teams especially the Polynesian variety. There was an article once that said how NFL scouts wants to mine the richer and more athletic rugby loving players in Western Samoa and about how American Samoans are 40 times more likely to be picked in NFL than those of non Samoans blood.
As for what William Perry eats:
Breakfast: six eggs, grits, bacon, cheese, toast, jelly and a quart of orange juice
Lunch: eight cheeseburgers, six portions of chips and six shakes
Dinner: five chickens, steak and ribs
I wouldnt exactly say without a problem and thats just 100 yards. A rugby pitch is 109 yards long and allot wider. I cant imagine Harrison lasting 5 minutes on a fast paced and continuous rugby game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
Quote:
Big Play by Steelers’ Harrison Took His (and Others’) Breath Away
http://d.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/ng/sp...6a0e.6913b.jpg
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...rrison.600.jpg
James Harrison collapses after scoring a touchdown
Harrison, the Pittsburgh Steelers’ All-Pro linebacker, had just intercepted a Kurt Warner pass and rumbled 100 yards for a touchdown that was heart-stopping not just for a worldwide audience, but, it appeared for a few minutes, perhaps Harrison himself. Exhausted from the longest play in Super Bowl history, Harrison lay supine on the side of the end zone all but motionless, trying to catch his breath.
“To be honest, I really didn’t think I’d make it all the way back,” Harrison said. “My teammates threw some vicious blocks.”
Just before the goal line, Arizona’s Steve Breaston smacked into Harrison from behind while Larry Fitzgerald tried to wrestle him down, but Harrison’s momentum was too great. He slumped to the ground helmet-first just beyond the goal line.
Harrison rolled over and lay face up, his arms and legs extended, as if making a motionless snow angel. He did not get up for a full two minutes while being visited by the Steelers' medical staff. During that time, not only was a penalty flag 100 yards away ruled an Arizona infraction, but the video referee also looked into whether the ball had crossed the goal line before the tackle. It was a crucial call — Harrison had taken all 18 seconds left on the clock to run the length of the field, so if he was ruled short of the goal line, Pittsburgh would have to choose between going for a field goal or a touchdown on its last play with no time remaining.
“I’ve never been more emotionally drained in my life,” he said.
Just as Harrison began to inhale oxygen through a mask, the referee Terry McAulay announced that the play would stand.
Actually there has already been an ex rugby player playing for a third tier team making it into the NFL without any problems, check out Richard Tardis. Even an ex AFL player has taken some punishing tackles and has made a tackle himself without any problems. Imagine what a first tier team like New Zealand, Australia and South Africa can do to the game of football, they would surely dominate.
Quote:
Richard Tardits grew up playing rugby, then, one day, as a student at the University of Georgia; he walked on to preseason football practice. "He didn't even know how to put his pads on," said then head coach and now Georgia Athletic Director Vince Dooley. "We put him in tight end and asked him to fire out and block and he fired out and tackled the guy. So we figured that we better put him on defense pretty quick."
As a linebacker who had never played gridiron before, Tardits learned quickly, and in one scrimmage
sacked the quarterback five times. "I gave him a battlefield promotion right there," said Dooley. "I gave him a scholarship. He had such explosiveness." Upon graduation, Tardits made all-conference as a linebacker, and had set a record for sacks at Georgia that still stands. He went on to play for the NFL for New England and Arizona.
After his NFL career was over, Tardits returned to rugby, playing for the United States 24 times.
"All those things he learned in rugby, mobility, running, reaction, and tackling, can help develop a young
Is the photo below the Protho injury your talking about? That's just an accident, it could happen in any contact sports and has happened in other sports. Football injuries are not worse.Quote:
Now turn around and ask me if a top-tier Wide Receiver, Corner, Safety or Running Back (the positions most similar in physical demands to rugby) could play rugby effectively. Athletically, they'd likely be fine. Position-wise, mentally, they wouldn't.
I mean I think it's funny that there's this talk of injury resilience in rugby, and "toughness," when the worst injuries in football are significantly worse. Google: tyrone prothro injury. Besides, there are plenty of "tough" football players who do play through injuries (Herschel Walker did it famously by putting a separated shoulder back into its socket and playing the next series, as well as Mike Vick, a quarterback playing a full season for the Falcons with both of his shoulders separated.)
http://images.smarter.com/blogs/prothro.jpg
Soccer
http://www.vg.no/bilder/edrum/1203772672438_618.jpg
Rugby
http://sportzfun.com/photos/albums/i...nee_injury.jpg
Rugby remained more traditional and didnt try to banish all forms of physicality like American football did in 1904. Not wearing a helmet is not a choice but requirement in the game, your team would be penalised for illegal equipment if rugby players started wearing non approved helmets. The only thing rugby players could wear are scrum caps which protects the ears from getting stomped on.Quote:
Also, it's worth mentioning that rugby players do have a certain toughness in that they don't care about what they look like, which is why they choose not to wear helmets. Helmets to protect the face and eyes (and, later, cranium) are the reason football players wear pads; tacklers lead with their helmets (how to stick a tackle? put your helmet on the ball.) Football players aren't willing to sacrifice their futures to prove they are some form of "masculine.
http://d.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/ng/sp/empics/4356413
http://sportzfun.com/photos/albums/i...y_eye_poke.jpg
When football teams start doing this...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eGCsEQ15L4"]YouTube - The Haka - New Zealand Vs Tonga[/ame]
Let me know. Watching that makes me want to hit something.
Football teams have done the haka before, however "the team were barred from eyeballing the opposing side by officials " because it was thought to be too intimidating. I think they even banned the ritual because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SneeBeezums
What Americans might not know is that the purpose of the Haka is not supposed to intimidate opponents, its supposed to be a ritual celebrating life. At least the New Zealanders doesnt use a spear like the Aboriginal team. The best would be the when the New Zealand face up to their equally physical Tongan rivals.
Rugby league isn't real rugby
My favorite 4 sports are, in no particular order; American Football(because I'm a lineman, a small one at that, and I love absolutely raping my larger counterparts and the quarterback), Hockey(Because A) I'm a Damn good center and goalie and B) The check happens to be my favorite move), Boxing(knock out, or be knocked out is how I've played, except one match where the smaller opponent wore me out(225lb Lineman in football vs 175lb Wide Receiver) and got more hits in towards the end of a 10minute round, and by judges decision he won) and Rugby(because the game looks fucking brutal)
I've been interested in rugby since I was 14, but in America, to my knowledge no High Schools, or Universities, give scholar ships for the sport, nor even have it as a sport to be in(Which sucks, because I played football, was getting looked at by numerous SEC scouts, then I talked to an Ohio State scout who I told I was Diabetic and he said "For most schools, they'd never sign you for a scholarship because of the dangers associated with making you gain 50+ pounds").
After seeing those clips I must say, Whenever the next season starts I'm going to hop my ass on the Nashville Rugby club(pretty sure we have 1 or 2 there) and play. Cause goddamn, causing pain/injury/any amount of hurt into an opponent happens to be my favorite thing amongst sports. Hell, in Hockey, when I played Goalie for my first season, my record for most blocked shots was 74, and I also did 20 combined minutes in the penalty box for hooking and/or roughing, mainly because the ref's would not call penalties for players being in my crease.
I love me some sports that allows me to legally hurt another player.
Ha! The average line man has at least fifty pounds on the rugby player, maybe more. Besides, football gives you great power collisions nearly every play, while the scrummage is just a bunch of guys pushing each other back and forth for a few inches.Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
Fifty pounds isnt gonna help you when matching up against some of these brutes in rugby, weight isnt the only factor that makes rugby players so good. One thing that football linesmen lacks by a very wide margin is the technique in tackling properly and how to be tackled. A rugby forward wouldnt do too bad in football but a linesman would absolutely die in a rugby pitch, probably from a heart attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries
What do you mean great power collisions on every play, im most plays ive seen the ball carrier either runs out of bounds or dives before getting tackles. Those around him are not tackling but blocking. Sorry but for me collisions are actual collisions and tackles.
A scrum is one of the most dangerous component in rugby, it is also one of the most dangerous thing to do in all of sport. A collapsed scrum could mean paralysis and death (im not kidding on this), your neck and spine is in a very dangerous position. When a scrum collapses you have 7 other players weighing 900kg pushing behind you and another 8 players with a combined weight of 1000kg pushing infront of you. When it collapses your head and neck goes straight down the ground, when this happens its very easy to snap and break it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRwcWMdhYJ0
Have you ever been in the scrum? Seriously? When a scrum collapses it is the scariest shit. Especially if you're play hook or second row and everything is on top of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries
What's funny about this thread is that the smart people accept that neither sports' players would be very well suited for the other and that this is a pretty meaningless discussion.
And then the idiots who play rugby (only idiots play rugby) try to convince us why their "more dangerous" sport makes its players perfectly capable to do anything that football players can do. :rolleyes:
Well I mean it's pretty simple... the contact area is quite different in each sport
You know that a person is loosing an arguement when they start insulting and name calling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
Calling rugby players idiots, by your summation the rest of the world other than American are all idiots because they play rugby?
Guys, 99% of people who play competitive sports are idiots. The only bigger idiots are people who play non-competitive sports.
also, many rugby players are identified by scouts whilst playing for a university team, much like American footballers, proving they at least have the capability to enter further educationQuote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
the difference is, rugby players dont get sports scolarships to go to college, where they just play for the team and go to classes just to say they are in the university.
Rugby players are intellegent, respectable proffessionals, who play a full contact sport to blow off steam
Football players are overfed lumps of angry thugs that like to run into other overfed lumps of angry thugs
Thats idiocy.
Uh, are you dense? Are you meaning to tell me that outside of America you cannot find a man, woman, or child capable of walking that doesn't play rugby? And on top of that, are you meaning to say that there are no American rugby players?Quote:
Originally Posted by monaroCountry
The argument that's been proposed in this thread is a pretty fitting definition of idiocy. You've tailor-fitted your qualifications and then challenged the participants of another sport to satisfy them. Everyone in this thread who is remotely reasonable has conceded that this is either 1) a dumb, indefensible argument or 2) a relatively meaningless comparison. Only the fucking knuckle-draggers are trying to carry on the Rugby-uber-alles garbage which has been chopped and dice to bits for the past 40 posts.
i wasnt trying to compare to start with, rugby jusst kicks footballs ass
but as people compared, rugby kicks its ass in comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monaroCountry
monaroCountry, as you can see, your argument just became invalid.Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
That being said, sailor jack, your average college football player doesn't get a scholarship, nor do they become pro football players. A vast majority of high quality football players finish college and move on to respectable professions. Very few of them just go to classes to say that they are part of the university. Also, have you considered how many college football players actually walk on after going to their school of choice on academic scholarships?
Atmosfear is right in saying that you average football players or rugby players probably wouldn't excel in the other sport, because despite being so similar, they are vastly different. I'm still sticking with the idea that a football player would have a better chance in a rugby league than a rugby player would have at any level of football. In terms of toughness, endurance, and skill required, a well rounded football player probably wouldn't have a problem. It's funny that linemen were mentioned to use as a comparison to rugby players, because they are the guys that play a position farthest from what a rugby player should be. Lets start comparing quarterbacks, fullbacks, halfbacks, dts, linebackers, etc. to rugby players and see where that goes.
i didnt name call, i observed. the only factor that football players have on rugby players is their weight, as stated in many posts in this thread on both sides of the argument. hence my comment on overfeeding.Quote:
Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries
and the fact that they are angry thugs can be proved by the fact that more football players have been convicted of serious crime than rugby players.
im not saying ALL football players are criminals, but im also not saying every Rugby player is better than a football player
Once again, you're making a fucking retarded generalization across a sport with high specialization. While NFL lineman have considerable weight on your average rugby player, NFL cornerbacks probably give up a few pounds to your average rugby player. You are yet again trying to compare apples to oranges. No one is saying an NFL lineman could be competitive in professional rugby, just as we know that a rugby player couldn't possibly compete with an NFL lineman. You're an idiot if you aren't getting this distinction.
And no, it can't be proven by any "fact." First of all, show me the evidence that football players are more likely to be convicted of serious crime independent of socioeconomic status, nationality, race, or gender. Then normalize those factors for rugby and football players. Now you have meaningful data. I mean Jesus Christ, America has more serious crime than Britain. If you take a look at any cross-section of American society and compare it, you'll find they commit more crimes because America has more crime, period. Correlation doesn't imply causation.
Atmosfear has fallen for the trollbait
Yeah :(
It's ok, most rugby fans and all rugby players know the two sports aren't entirely compatible
That's just stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
You really think that this guy(Brian Dawkins) wouldn't hit someone without pads on?Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/...er-broncos.jpg
The correct answer is that he would kill them.
I love how you are comparing professional football players to pussies you know who just played football a couple times.Quote:
Originally Posted by SneeBeezums
Why the fuck are you only comparing linemen, a very specialized position, to all kinds of rugby players. They are not meant to have enough endurance to sprint all game, that's why they are so fucking big. You guys just compare linemen because they are huge and have a bunch of fat on them so naturally they don't look nearly as athletic or anything. Those linemen will fuck shit up, they are extremely powerful and surprisingly fast. Why aren't you guys looking at db's, hb's, and other positions? They are a lot smaller, can run all day and still dish out huge hits on people as well as catch the ball and break the shit out of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by SneeBeezums
If football players didn't have pads then either the game would be different or people would die or get seriously injured frequently.Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
That's idiocy.Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
I was talking about kids that played in High School who we were trying to recruit for a college level of rugby. I never implied that professionals were pussies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
I think, killuminati, that if the NFL took pads out of the game, most proffesionals including Brian Dawkins would not play proffessionally. Sure he'd hit someone without pads, but i doubt he'd keep hitting people for a season. The game would have to be changed to account for the fact that the players would be continuously on and off a stretcher after hitting or being hit.
in general though, youve all made good arguments that rugby isnt a "better" sport. personally i disagree with those arguments but there we go. There havent been very many, if any, points on why Football is "better" than rugby, which is one of the reasons i started this thread. everybody i have talked to about it can always defend football in comparison to rugby, but ive never really heard any positive points about football over rugby. Its all very well bringing an argument down, but thats useless if you dont have your own. So does anyone have their own?
Then what point were you trying to make?Quote:
Originally Posted by SneeBeezums
I don't think anyone in here was really trying to argue which sport is "better" because they are 2 different sports. They can't be compared like that, it is a matter of personal preference.Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
exactly, which is what i started the thread for.
but seeing as people have started discussing which is better, im curious as to why you and others have argued against rugby but not for football
Whoever negrepped me (oh no, I'm completely distraught), I chose football and rugby because 1) I like both games and 2) they are similar.
Personally, I think Rugby is much better in many ways. There's more contact, it's a much more flowing game and I find it more physically demanding. I also dislike the spectacle of professional football. I think there is too much pre-game and half time messing, which has made it less of a sport and more of a circus.
I will name three players that will destroy at rugby.
1. Brian Dawkins
2. Roy Williams
3. Ray Lewis
And Sean Taylor would murder if, well, you know...he wasn't murdered.
Oh, and Bob Sanders.
Real men play croquet, I'd like to see a rugby player or an NFL player do that.
I like water polo.
I just like the feeling of being able to pee while playing sports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepsi
1. Who?
2. Who?
3. Who?
I doubt these guys would destroy anyone in rugby. What makes you thing these three can even mix it with the international rugby players?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
Whats so intimidating about that? I think this Brian Dawkins guy would get owned on a rugby pitch.
Just because Australia flogged England 52 – 4 in the last rugby league world cup :cooler::cooler:.Quote:
Originally Posted by benzss
I would go the other way around and say that a rugby league player would have a far better chance playing football than a football player playing rugby league. A rugby league player knows how to catch, pass, defend, attack, kick, think on his toes, etc they are required to be excellent at various skills (not just one) and are expected to play for the whole 80 minute game.Quote:
Atmosfear is right in saying that you average football players or rugby players probably wouldn't excel in the other sport, because despite being so similar, they are vastly different. I'm still sticking with the idea that a football player would have a better chance in a rugby league than a rugby player would have at any level of football. In terms of toughness, endurance, and skill required, a well rounded football player probably wouldn't have a problem
A football player wouldnt be able to hold a candle in terms of toughness, endurance and skill.
Well that is a wide and not at all confirmable generalizationQuote:
Originally Posted by monaroCountry
This statement alone shows that your opinion is worthless in this matter. You don't even know who dawkins is and you assume he would get owned in rugby. He would end lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by monaroCountry
edit: lol I didn't even read that last post you made, you are dumb.
Brian Dawkins is an 18-wheeler on legs.
Enough said.
And I'm only agreeing with Kill here because of one fact about Dawkins, and Kill knows it. :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
In saying that you dont know how good these rugby players are and how skilled they are to think that this Dawkins fella can come in and kill them. These rugby players are some of the best athletes from multiple countries, not just from one.
Brian Dawkins
Height: 6 ft 0 in (1.83 m)
Weight: 210 lb (95 kg)
http://www.burnprevention.org/images/Dawkins_000.gif
Lesley Vainikolo (Winger)
Height: 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m)
Weight 17 st 8 lb (112 kg)
This guy actually qualified for the 1998 World Junior Athletics Championships for sprinting before choosing rugby league as his profession. Lesley is a dual international athlete having represented his country in both rugby league and rugby union.
http://www.virginmedia.com/images/vainikolo-england.jpg
Lote Tuqiri (Winger)
Height 191 cm (6 ft 3 in)
Weight 103 kg (16 st 3 lb)
A powerhouse winger who went from rugby league to rugby union, is also a dual international rugby star.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hE0TRpE-p8...+Australia.jpg
Wendell Sailor (Winger)
Height 192 cm (6 ft 4 in)
Weight 106 kg (16 st 10 lb)
Another powerhouse winger and dual international who played for Australia in both rugby league and rugby union.
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200602/r72132_201007.jpg
Which NFL player is regularly called upon to do the kicking, running the ball, do the catching, defend and tackle, do the passing and do all the trick plays? I selected the three wingers above because as wingers they should be able to kick a ball, catch a long cut out pass, catch a cross field kick and drop punts, do tackles and score tries as well as anyone.Quote:
Well that is a wide and not at all confirmable generalization
Can anyone confirm that NFL players would kill a rugby player when both are not wearing paddings? No. Can anyone confirm that deaths would occur every game if NFL players were to take off their paddings? No. Do you have proof that Brian Dawkins, Roy Williams and Ray Lewis can destroy a rugby player? No.
If you want to play it that way then you can't say anything either. You have no proof any of the rugby players would be able to compete in football or that any of the football players would be able to compete in rugby. You mention these guys as multi sport athletes or whatever but the best football players were always football players and don't want to leave to do anything else because of the money they make.
We all know that American Football is just Rugby for pansies.
On a funnier note, proper football is far more dangerous than rubgy and american football combined, muhaha. The injuries might not be worse, they just occur much more frequently.
That's because pretty much every player is a cunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by gismo
oh come on.
football is my favourite of all sports by a long way but with the exeption of about 3 players, all modern footballers are queens
im pretty sure Sonny Bill Williams would destroy himQuote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
http://s.bebo.com/app-image/79257687...L_WILLIAMS.jpg
Yer dumb.
Just sayin'.
Why is this still going
I didn't read the entire thread, mostly because both sides keep saying the same thing, and both are fairly retarded.
I will debunk most of your retarded myths right now.
On the Rugby side people say:
1) Rugby players play then entire game without getting tired, football players only play for X amount of time. They aren't really in shape
This is by far the dumbest idea in the thread. First, Football players have pads on, sprinting with weight on is SHOCKINGLY more tiring than regular sprinting. Also generally rugby player conserve energy during the game, where as football players are expected to sprint and try as hard as possible on every play. These guys get paid millions of dollars to be top-shape athletes, and they are. Even the big guys are extremely quick and agile.
2) Football players couldn't hit without pads
They could, they probably wouldn't be as good at it, but they could. What really matters is that Rugby players couldn't tackle football players as affectively too. People with pads generally run harder than people without pads on and lean into the impact instead of bracing for impact. Tackling with/out pads is an entirely different dynamic. It's not the same thing. Stop comparing it before i off myself.
3) The Haka
You know why football players don't do this? BECAUSE IT'S EXTREMELY FUCKING GAY.
Now, For the football side of things. No one arguing for the football side has made a single worthy point.
The fact of the matter is America isn't as good as rugby because our top-tier athletes don't play rugby. If they did, we would dominate all other countries. We have the best athletes in the world, this is why we always win the medal count at the olympics. There is not denying it.
You see ladies in gentleman, during the Slavery era in America. We would breed African American like horses. Biggest black guys bang the biggest black ladies to have big black babies. This happened for generations, and this is why we have the NFL.
Edit: The 2 different sports exist for a reason. They are different. If i grew up in New Zealand I would probably like Rugby more. If you grew up in America, you would enjoy football more.
You do realise that rugby players, both league and union play many more minutes of actual footy than american footballers do. Now lets make a generisation, and yes its a generlisation, but its correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jude
A simple test will show that rugby union players play approximately 30-40 minutes of actual football in an 80 minute game. An american footballer will play between 10-20 minutes a game. A rugby league player will play between 50-60 minutes of footy per game. Now using these figures we can see that it goes american football < union < league for endurance. These players have pads on...wow...must REALLY increase their weight and therefore their endurance to wear them. Bullshit. Thats pulling at straws there. Any normal person would realise that most american footballers would not have the endurance to last the fast paced rugby action for 80 whole minutes. Imagine I'm watching a game of american football. We start, the quarter back throws it, someone gets tackled. 10-20 seconds of play. Lets break for a minute. Another play, quarterback throws it, it goes to ground. Oh no. Another 1-2 minute break. These guys get so much time to rest. Anyone who knows the game of league knows that fat DOES NOT HELP YOU AT ALL. You have to be very fit to play the game. In union, fat helps a little but not much.
You know what happens to rugby players when they dont play there heart out? They get dropped. They go back to training and the reserve grade and learn to fix their attitude. That comment is just bullshit. American footballers get far more time to rest during their games. Wow they play their ass off for 10-20 minutes a game. These rugby players play their ass off for upwards of an hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jude
Ok, I've already posted, but i decided I wanted to "debunk" every little piece of bullshit you have come up with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jude
Defence in rugby is all about technique. How do you think a 70-75kg guy like Brett Hodgeson can take down someone like Willie Mason 115kg 195cm. Because they use brilliant technique. How do you take down a guy much bigger than you running at you at speed. Go low, take their legs and fall backwards; most normal people would agree its pretty hard to run without legs. If you don't believe me, ask a paraplegic. So it doesn't matter how big these guys are; being too big will in turn make u slower and you will get smashed in a rugby gang tackle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jude
Ok. You obviously haven't watched much union or league. In order to not get smashed, the runner has to run their ass off at the line. If you brace for impact, you will get smashed. SMASHED.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jude
Thats just racist. It is a cultural dance, a war dance. And despite earlier comments, it is used to intimidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jude
Brian Dawkins is only one example -- there are dozens of guys in the NFL who are bigger and just as fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by monaroCountry
Brandon Jacobs
193 cm
18 st 13 lbs
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Bra...C12886611.jpeg
Mario Williams
200 cm
21 st
7.6% bodyfat
http://static.nfl.com/static/content...allery_600.jpg
Julius Peppers
200 cm
20st 3 lbs
4% bodyfat
Played both football and basketball for the University of North Carolina, one of the top college basketball programs in the United States.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/images/20...217205112.jpeg
http://www.scottfowlersports.com/photos/bigjulius.jpg
Vernon Davis
191 cm
18 st
4.38 40-yard dash
http://www.supplements365.com/images.../vernon_04.jpg
Jevon Kearse
193 cm
18 st 3 lbs
4.43 40-yard dash
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/im...le-Posters.jpg
That's just off the top of my head -- don't wanna get banned for image spam after my first post ;)
No, I don't think any of these guys will kill any rugger -- especially not those hard-assed islanders (many of which, like Troy Polamalu, play American football over here) -- but I do think that, if they worked hard enough on their conditioning and all-around skills, they could hold their own in rugby. Not DOMINATE, necessarily, but hold their own.
If they went straight from the gridiron to the rugby pitch, of course they wouldn't. But if given a summer or so with a rugby club to work on their cardio and endurance training, I think they'd eventually get the hang of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by husseyclarke
The offense has 40 seconds (not "1 or 2 minutes") to run another play, after which the officials call a delay of game penalty.Quote:
Imagine I'm watching a game of american football. We start, the quarter back throws it, someone gets tackled. 10-20 seconds of play. Lets break for a minute. Another play, quarterback throws it, it goes to ground. Oh no. Another 1-2 minute break. These guys get so much time to rest. Anyone who knows the game of league knows that fat DOES NOT HELP YOU AT ALL. You have to be very fit to play the game. In union, fat helps a little but not much.
The game could stand to have far fewer timeouts, especially "media timeouts (ugh)," I'll have to agree.
To clarify, the only "fat" players on an American football team are the interior linemen, who block for the running backs and quarterback on offense and obstruct the running lanes on defense -- the other 6 players on offense (and 8 or 9 players on defense) are expected to carry mostly lean muscle mass.
Players get benched for half-assing it in just about every team sport. :)Quote:
You know what happens to rugby players when they dont play there heart out? They get dropped. They go back to training and the reserve grade and learn to fix their attitude. That comment is just bullshit. American footballers get far more time to rest during their games. Wow they play their ass off for 10-20 minutes a game. These rugby players play their ass off for upwards of an hour.
What I think the poster was trying to get at was that, in American football, EVERY player is doing something on EVERY play; in rugby the rest of the offensive players cannot block the defensive players -- that is obstruction. Therefore, when not in possession of the ball, the most the other offensive players can do is either contest for the scrum, or position themselves to receive a pass.
That was definitely an ignorant statement by that guy, especially since the Brigham Young University and University of Hawai'i college football teams, both of which are largely composed of Pacific Islanders, also perform the haka.Quote:
Originally Posted by husseyclarke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNeoJQxtlRM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pCZ5RkhJkY
mate, well posted, i have to agree with you on all fronts
I LOVE RUGBY
its so much fun lol try to play it in school uniform,even more fun XD;
me and my friends had this crazy idea to go into my friends back garden and play rugby,and she said we dont need to change was friday,they were gonna get washed anywayso we ran out and played,it was fun,and seeing as it was ireland,it was muddy XD the state of uslols my friend even took a piccie
rugby is cool,i like it,i actually understand the rules,and half of my family plays/played it.
so much better than american football <.<
liking one sport does not make it better than the other
FFS SOMEONE CLOSE THIS GODDAMN THREAD
Captain Obvious is a fan of pudding!