football/soccer whteva u wanna call it
- Thread starter shorty2oo5
- Start date
Well Rugby you have none - you have to take the hit.
No pads - means you get whacked hard if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Watch any rugby game and look at the fear in the eyes of the outside half (10) as he sees a big wing forward (7 usually, maybe 6 sometimes) going for his head.
If you have 10 protecting you then you've got pretty much enough time to get rid of the ball before one of them get to you. Plus it stops as soon as the person is hit - Rugby it carries on.
If you get tackled and turned - you're going to get stamped on by 18/19 stone men - saying that Rugby hurts less than American Football is ridiculous - you will get battered to hell and back playing Rugby regardless, American football you'll only really get hit if you make such an obvious play that they line you up before you start your run.
No pads - means you get whacked hard if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Watch any rugby game and look at the fear in the eyes of the outside half (10) as he sees a big wing forward (7 usually, maybe 6 sometimes) going for his head.
If you have 10 protecting you then you've got pretty much enough time to get rid of the ball before one of them get to you. Plus it stops as soon as the person is hit - Rugby it carries on.
If you get tackled and turned - you're going to get stamped on by 18/19 stone men - saying that Rugby hurts less than American Football is ridiculous - you will get battered to hell and back playing Rugby regardless, American football you'll only really get hit if you make such an obvious play that they line you up before you start your run.
Two questions:
What do you count as a "hit" because 90% of those are shoulder charges - not a hit - a hit is where you wrap someone up pick them up and drive them down - not leaning into someone who's off balance because they're doing their 40 yard sprint in 4.7 secs (impressive for a beast, but still off balance looking at these so all thats happening is someone is putting their shoulder in and knocking them down).
Secondly - how many of those "massive" hits arent as a result of someone jumping before they get hit? If you jump into someone you're going to end up on your head - regardless - so that really doesn't make it that impressive, just makes the person jumping in a complete tool.
This is really a stupid argument but I thought I'd post up some comments by others.
Comment 1:
Having played on an organized level in both sports, I this is a fair assessment:
1. The cardiovascular demands for rugby are more intense. Football has more time in the midst of play to huddle and catch one's breath, and the plays themselves often last only a few seconds. And in football you get to rest for half the game! You won't see any 350 pound linemen lumbering around a rugby field.
2. But you will see 350 pound lineman exploding in bursts of enormous energy on a football field. Being the sole target of their attack as a linebacker or defensive back, when your attention is supposed to be focused on someone else who has the ball, is an unpleasant experience not available in rugby. And sometimes there are two of them.
3. There is a reason that football players wear padding and helmets. The hitting is more severe. In part this is due to the fact that they have helmets in the first place.
4. In my first-ever rugby game I used a football-style tackle, putting my face right in the guy's sternum, on a goal-line play. The results were outstanding, jarring the ball loose and preventing a score. My opponent broke his collarbone and I suffered a concussion. As rugby players will have it, we became good friends and admiring opponents for three years. But I learned never to tackle that way again without a helmet!
5. The rugby songs and beer beat anything football has ever devised.
On balance, I left rugby games far more exhausted, bruised and bloodied than I did football games. But I left more opponents either injured or in pain on the football field.
Both a great, intense games, whose requirements are as different as they are similar. Both provide opportunities for life lessons that are irreplaceable. To argue in favor of one over the other is to be a fan. To disrespect one over the other is to never have played the other.
Comment 2:
I've played both Ruby and American football as well and they are two completely different sports. I’ve even played against a few aussies and New Zealanders and got the crap kicked out of me. They’ve in turned tried grid iron and once they figured out what it’s really all about, they got into it and admit it’s not a wanker or puff sport; just different.
To add to the topic, the two have completely different strategies. In rugby, the object is to keep the play moving all the time. In American football, it’s to stop or halt forward advance of the ball. Both are tough, but in different ways.
For those who know little about the sport of grid iron. American football is like Rugby restructured to play on a chess board or battlefield mock up. They depend on attack strategies also known as "plays" which are mapped and kept in playbooks. It’s not just required for a player to have strength, but to have intelligence as they are part of a planned attack on every play and trying to out think the opponent all the time.
Comparing American football to rugby is like comparing rugby to soccer. They may have originated from each other, but they have evolved into completely different sports.
Rugby is more fast pace and continuous. American football is more organized and requires more of a chess mind; it’s more cerebral.
Comment 1:
Having played on an organized level in both sports, I this is a fair assessment:
1. The cardiovascular demands for rugby are more intense. Football has more time in the midst of play to huddle and catch one's breath, and the plays themselves often last only a few seconds. And in football you get to rest for half the game! You won't see any 350 pound linemen lumbering around a rugby field.
2. But you will see 350 pound lineman exploding in bursts of enormous energy on a football field. Being the sole target of their attack as a linebacker or defensive back, when your attention is supposed to be focused on someone else who has the ball, is an unpleasant experience not available in rugby. And sometimes there are two of them.
3. There is a reason that football players wear padding and helmets. The hitting is more severe. In part this is due to the fact that they have helmets in the first place.
4. In my first-ever rugby game I used a football-style tackle, putting my face right in the guy's sternum, on a goal-line play. The results were outstanding, jarring the ball loose and preventing a score. My opponent broke his collarbone and I suffered a concussion. As rugby players will have it, we became good friends and admiring opponents for three years. But I learned never to tackle that way again without a helmet!
5. The rugby songs and beer beat anything football has ever devised.
On balance, I left rugby games far more exhausted, bruised and bloodied than I did football games. But I left more opponents either injured or in pain on the football field.
Both a great, intense games, whose requirements are as different as they are similar. Both provide opportunities for life lessons that are irreplaceable. To argue in favor of one over the other is to be a fan. To disrespect one over the other is to never have played the other.
Comment 2:
I've played both Ruby and American football as well and they are two completely different sports. I’ve even played against a few aussies and New Zealanders and got the crap kicked out of me. They’ve in turned tried grid iron and once they figured out what it’s really all about, they got into it and admit it’s not a wanker or puff sport; just different.
To add to the topic, the two have completely different strategies. In rugby, the object is to keep the play moving all the time. In American football, it’s to stop or halt forward advance of the ball. Both are tough, but in different ways.
For those who know little about the sport of grid iron. American football is like Rugby restructured to play on a chess board or battlefield mock up. They depend on attack strategies also known as "plays" which are mapped and kept in playbooks. It’s not just required for a player to have strength, but to have intelligence as they are part of a planned attack on every play and trying to out think the opponent all the time.
Comparing American football to rugby is like comparing rugby to soccer. They may have originated from each other, but they have evolved into completely different sports.
Rugby is more fast pace and continuous. American football is more organized and requires more of a chess mind; it’s more cerebral.
Here is England Rugby Master Martin Johnson visiting a training camp of the San Fransico 49ers in California. Here he talks about hiw love for both Rugby and Grid Iron. Pay close attention to what he says about the hitting and the padding gear of the grid iron players. He sure doesn't think these guys are puffs or wimps and doesn't think it makes things easier. Read the article all the way through. Its really interesting.
Well Said Evolution and chrissmith921! If you notice most people who 'knock' on another sport don't know much about it to begin with. Most comments are aimed to ridicule that which is foreign to what they know.
"The greater the ignorance, the greater the dogmatism" - Sir William Osler
(dogmatism: A viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficient examined premises)
"The greater the ignorance, the greater the dogmatism" - Sir William Osler
(dogmatism: A viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficient examined premises)
Comparing
Ok, so then lets put it this way. The SPORT of rugby is more demanding than american football, but the NFL is more demanding than any professional rugby association for the simple fact that NFL players are the biggest, strongest, & fastest guys in the world. The reason they where pads is because of that fact. If they didn't, it would be more of a gladiator sport. They would kill each other, and it would be a fight to the death.
Ok, so then lets put it this way. The SPORT of rugby is more demanding than american football, but the NFL is more demanding than any professional rugby association for the simple fact that NFL players are the biggest, strongest, & fastest guys in the world. The reason they where pads is because of that fact. If they didn't, it would be more of a gladiator sport. They would kill each other, and it would be a fight to the death.
If you believe that the NFL guys are all bigger and stronger than what Rugby has to offer then you're sadly mistaken.
Every rugby team at top level contains guys who are 6'8+
Every rugby team at top level contains guys who are 290lbs+
Every rugby team at top level contains guys who can run 100m in less than 11s.
Christ even the rugby side I play for, which is 4th division in Wales - contains a single player who has all the above attributes combined - if he could catch a ball, he'd be lethal.
You need to look outside the box if you have this over inflated opinion on the NFL - Rugby has only been professional for a few years but still the guys are as big as the majority (yes maybe some massive guys in NFL, but I'm talking about the size of the majority of them) of what American Football has to offer.
Otherwise, the US would have a hell of a forward pack in Rugby - as they'd all be massive lads who could bash through teams - but they don't. The US pack (majority are NFL castoffs) is quite small when compared the packs of Argentina, Wales, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia - the major players in World Rugby in terms of forward power.
Every rugby team at top level contains guys who are 6'8+
Every rugby team at top level contains guys who are 290lbs+
Every rugby team at top level contains guys who can run 100m in less than 11s.
Christ even the rugby side I play for, which is 4th division in Wales - contains a single player who has all the above attributes combined - if he could catch a ball, he'd be lethal.
You need to look outside the box if you have this over inflated opinion on the NFL - Rugby has only been professional for a few years but still the guys are as big as the majority (yes maybe some massive guys in NFL, but I'm talking about the size of the majority of them) of what American Football has to offer.
Otherwise, the US would have a hell of a forward pack in Rugby - as they'd all be massive lads who could bash through teams - but they don't. The US pack (majority are NFL castoffs) is quite small when compared the packs of Argentina, Wales, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia - the major players in World Rugby in terms of forward power.
Chris, I have been very neutral on this as I could care less about whether rugby or football is the tougher, meaner sport. However, you're carrying a very one-sidedness on this. I guess you missed my posts that talked about from others who have played BOTH sports that both have their points which make them a tough sport...some aspects one is tougher than the other.
Here are some stats for football
As you can see, football has more than a few players in the 300+ pound area. We also have positions that require a certain body type...you wouldn't have a wide receiver at 300 pounds, but you'd have a center at 300 pounds. So, football doesn't just need a bunch of big guys running around trying to hit each other. But make no mistake, our offensive front linemen are very big and hit very hard.
Here's the thing...take a professional rugby player and take a professional football player and I think both could adapt fairly well to each other's sport. I don't think football players are superior to rugby or visa-versa.
Here are some stats for football
As you can see, football has more than a few players in the 300+ pound area. We also have positions that require a certain body type...you wouldn't have a wide receiver at 300 pounds, but you'd have a center at 300 pounds. So, football doesn't just need a bunch of big guys running around trying to hit each other. But make no mistake, our offensive front linemen are very big and hit very hard.
Here's the thing...take a professional rugby player and take a professional football player and I think both could adapt fairly well to each other's sport. I don't think football players are superior to rugby or visa-versa.
I've never said footballers are superior or inferior to rugby players, im trying to correct the viewpoint however that the average man in the nfl is bigger than the average man in rugby - which he is not.
contrary to nfl, there is no absolute requirement for position in terms of size - and on the wing (equivalent to wide reciever for nfl) you will get 280lbs+ men - Jonah Lomu is a prime example of one.
Therefore if you were to take the average size of a man playing rugby, vs the average size of a man (taking into account the wide reciever, quarter back as well as the massive linesmen) you'd more than likely find that the rugby player was larger - simply because to be a forward you need to be in excess of 270lbs (realistically) and height for 5 of them will be minimum 6'5.
The backs (originally all built like wide recievers) are now bigger and stronger - Gavin Henson (23 years old) is around 6'2 and 245lbs - and hes a back - and a slight one in terms of build compared to some of the players coming out of the Southern Hemisphere, or Rougerie (France), Brian O'Driscoll (Ireland) and Mike Tindall (England).
To play rugby at the top level now the minimum requirement is 6'0 and at least 200 lbs - and remember that that is the smallest - some of them are in excess of 7'0 and excess of 340lbs.
contrary to nfl, there is no absolute requirement for position in terms of size - and on the wing (equivalent to wide reciever for nfl) you will get 280lbs+ men - Jonah Lomu is a prime example of one.
Therefore if you were to take the average size of a man playing rugby, vs the average size of a man (taking into account the wide reciever, quarter back as well as the massive linesmen) you'd more than likely find that the rugby player was larger - simply because to be a forward you need to be in excess of 270lbs (realistically) and height for 5 of them will be minimum 6'5.
The backs (originally all built like wide recievers) are now bigger and stronger - Gavin Henson (23 years old) is around 6'2 and 245lbs - and hes a back - and a slight one in terms of build compared to some of the players coming out of the Southern Hemisphere, or Rougerie (France), Brian O'Driscoll (Ireland) and Mike Tindall (England).
To play rugby at the top level now the minimum requirement is 6'0 and at least 200 lbs - and remember that that is the smallest - some of them are in excess of 7'0 and excess of 340lbs.
I just did a test
I just did a test on these two teams just to see what would happen. I went to their sites and took the first 15 on each roster and totalled it up. To me.. and just what I would expect, Rugby players are more consistant around the same height and weight, whereas NFL players are taylored more to their position. The average weight equals close to the same.. the height almost exact. I really don't think 'hitting harder' has to do with the size but rather than common sense factors such as size vs speed and the confidence that you will not be injured if you put on a hard hit (which pads gives you that confidence). It's not a matter of who is tuffer which it seems people here argue on that notion alone. I think that if a person put pads on rugby players, a person would be suprised to see how much harder they could actually hit. Sure, they hit hard now.. but nothing like they would with pads on.
And as far as 'more violence' chis.. well, duh.. you tend to bleed more if you aren't wearning pads and hitting. If I run through a woods nekkid versus clothed, I will probably get more cuts as well. What does that have to do with anything. But, I think you like to talk rather than listen to the posts from people that HAVE played both sports versus your one sided rendition.
Glascow Warriors
6'6 250
5'9 207
6'3 238
6'2" 211
5'5" 211
6'3" 227
5'9" 198
6'2" 194
6'2" 207
6'5" 240
6'2" 229
6'2" 262
6'1" 271
5'10" 253
6'3" 260
Avg Weight:230 Height: 6.1
Kansas City Chiefs
6'5 310
6'6 270
6'4 310
6'1 200
6'2 205
6'1 245
6'5 310
6'5 310
6'1 190
5'10 210
5'11 185
6'5 297
6'3 210
6'3 216
6'2 206
Avg Weight: 244 Height: 6.2
I just did a test on these two teams just to see what would happen. I went to their sites and took the first 15 on each roster and totalled it up. To me.. and just what I would expect, Rugby players are more consistant around the same height and weight, whereas NFL players are taylored more to their position. The average weight equals close to the same.. the height almost exact. I really don't think 'hitting harder' has to do with the size but rather than common sense factors such as size vs speed and the confidence that you will not be injured if you put on a hard hit (which pads gives you that confidence). It's not a matter of who is tuffer which it seems people here argue on that notion alone. I think that if a person put pads on rugby players, a person would be suprised to see how much harder they could actually hit. Sure, they hit hard now.. but nothing like they would with pads on.
And as far as 'more violence' chis.. well, duh.. you tend to bleed more if you aren't wearning pads and hitting. If I run through a woods nekkid versus clothed, I will probably get more cuts as well. What does that have to do with anything. But, I think you like to talk rather than listen to the posts from people that HAVE played both sports versus your one sided rendition.
Glascow Warriors
6'6 250
5'9 207
6'3 238
6'2" 211
5'5" 211
6'3" 227
5'9" 198
6'2" 194
6'2" 207
6'5" 240
6'2" 229
6'2" 262
6'1" 271
5'10" 253
6'3" 260
Avg Weight:230 Height: 6.1
Kansas City Chiefs
6'5 310
6'6 270
6'4 310
6'1 200
6'2 205
6'1 245
6'5 310
6'5 310
6'1 190
5'10 210
5'11 185
6'5 297
6'3 210
6'3 216
6'2 206
Avg Weight: 244 Height: 6.2
Guys, Guys, I think you're STILL missing the whole point. Who gives a crap who is taller and weighs more? What does that have to do with which sport is superior? Give your testosterone a break and just say (in unison):
I realize that I may not be as passionate as you are about {inser other sport here} but I will not judge simply for the fact that I don't completely understand or appreciate what it takes to be a pro at {insert other sport here}...
And by the way Vandy to say:
is one of the dumbest comments on this site. I would think the 'faster men' in the world, er wait planet, could be found more easily in track. Generalizing based on what YOU consider to be a fact and I use that term losely is just ludicris....JMHO though.
Also, having played 'competetively' at both sports in a "city" league or the Y doesn't make you experts at the pro leagues, again JMHO...
I realize that I may not be as passionate as you are about {inser other sport here} but I will not judge simply for the fact that I don't completely understand or appreciate what it takes to be a pro at {insert other sport here}...
And by the way Vandy to say:
vandy said:
is one of the dumbest comments on this site. I would think the 'faster men' in the world, er wait planet, could be found more easily in track. Generalizing based on what YOU consider to be a fact and I use that term losely is just ludicris....JMHO though.
Also, having played 'competetively' at both sports in a "city" league or the Y doesn't make you experts at the pro leagues, again JMHO...
Last edited:
Moonbeam3 said:
I don't think he meant the fastest, rather than a combination of the 3 attributes together. I would have to agree that NFL players have some of the big + strong + fast in the world. And, I am sure rugby is right up there too. But to say his comment is one of the dumbest comments on the site is alittle too much if you would have taken the time to see read what he meant. I think it's pretty obvious they are not going to outrun an olympic sprinter. duh
jungleb said:
Could be, but you guys are still missing the point. Instead of trying to prove your own point maybe YOU GUYS can take the time to read THEIR posts. Of course the NFL has strong/fast/big players, that's what it takes to play football.
Others sports will have other attributes that NFL players don't, for examplbe the NBA (amongs the tallest athletes), Soccer (amongst the fittest and leanest) etc, etc.