Post by: Tony42077 on February 23, 2005, 02:13:00 PM
Who are tougher, better athletes?
Who would win at each others sports, first?
I think that the U.S. born NFL players would win them all, I am just trolling for some classic european (or rugby player) excuse why they are better.
Post by: Hercules Q Einstein on February 23, 2005, 03:12:00 PM
Post by: Baner on February 24, 2005, 12:27:00 PM
QUOTE
(NFL Players) are in much better shape.
Ya, that 350 lb blob of fat covering your QB is prolly in the best shape of his life. You won't find players like that in Rugby, 1. Cause they don't get a 5 minute rest break between every play, and 2. Every man on the field has to be contantly running to stay up with the pack.
Me seeing your typical "Manning" QB in no pads, with the rest of the other team ready to pile him into the ground, would be entertaining.
Most QB are too scared to get hit head on by the other team when they are wrapped up in pads, I would love to see what they would do when they are laying on the ground having clets dug into thier chests. 
Not to mention that one set of players are out on the field the entire game, with the exception of a few substitutions... ya, that means no special teams, offensive teams, defensive teams. Every player must be able to tackle, throw the ball, kick the ball, and do constant running.
It'd be fun to watch, but I'm thinking Football would have to be cancled the next season to let the players have a bit more time to rest in thier multimillion dollar houses, with thier ivory bathtubs.
Post by: Arvarden on March 10, 2005, 07:04:00 AM
Rugby players don't wear body armour.
America=0
Rest of the world=10
Post by: caster420 on March 10, 2005, 02:48:00 PM
QUOTE(Hercules Q Einstein @ Feb 23 2005, 03:42 PM)
Boxers (NFL Players) are in much better shape
Having played both sports in high school, I can definetly say i was in much much better shape after rugby season than football season. You are phyical for the entire duration of a rugby game, where as in football you get too many breaks in play. You have an all out physical competition (running, weights, etc..) and i bet rugby players would win overall.
Caster.
Post by: chucko on March 11, 2005, 09:38:00 AM
Post by: Baner on March 11, 2005, 12:29:00 PM
QUOTE
if you put NFL linemen (defensive and offensive) in a rugby match, it would get disgustingly ugly.
Yup, and you'd have one pissed off groundskeeper trying to pull the two fatasses off each other after they passed out from running 10 yds.
QUOTE
NFL players are definitely better athletes
What exactly is your definition of athlete? Are you talking about having better sportsmanship? Or being able to play the game better? I can tell you that an NFL QB can't take a direct hit and be up and running in 3 seconds at 100% and a lineman can't run 10 yds up field, just to turn around and run 100yds downfield... for 90 minutes straight(How long is a period in Rugby? It's been so long since I've played or watched it... damn American Tv
)Your average rugby player will be more fit then your average football player, and will be more able to do more parts of the game... ie Offensive, Defensive, Passing, Kicking.
I'd love to see a match either way.
Post by: chucko on March 14, 2005, 10:30:00 AM
QUOTE(Baner @ Mar 11 2005, 01:35 PM)
Yup, and you'd have one pissed off groundskeeper trying to pull the two fatasses off each other after they passed out from running 10 yds.
What exactly is your definition of athlete? Are you talking about having better sportsmanship? Or being able to play the game better? I can tell you that an NFL QB can't take a direct hit and be up and running in 3 seconds at 100% and a lineman can't run 10 yds up field, just to turn around and run 100yds downfield... for 90 minutes straight(How long is a period in Rugby? It's been so long since I've played or watched it... damn American Tv :beer: )
Your average rugby player will be more fit then your average football player, and will be more able to do more parts of the game... ie Offensive, Defensive, Passing, Kicking.
I'd love to see a match either way. :luv:
What exactly is your definition of athlete? Are you talking about having better sportsmanship? Or being able to play the game better? I can tell you that an NFL QB can't take a direct hit and be up and running in 3 seconds at 100% and a lineman can't run 10 yds up field, just to turn around and run 100yds downfield... for 90 minutes straight(How long is a period in Rugby? It's been so long since I've played or watched it... damn American Tv :beer: )
Your average rugby player will be more fit then your average football player, and will be more able to do more parts of the game... ie Offensive, Defensive, Passing, Kicking.
I'd love to see a match either way. :luv:
It would be fun to watch. Athleticism defined by footwork, agility, flatout speed, strength, coordination, balance, etc. Although I mentioned linmen, not all football players are lineman. You have cornerbacks at 225 lbs. running 4.3. 40s, you have linebackers at 250 - 260 lbs running 4.4 - 4.5. 40s and are strong as hell. Your point about running around for 90 minutes is well taken, but with broken legs 90 minutes of running would never happen. The nature of the football player would change the dynamic of the Rugby sport, hence this is kind of a silly comparison, but fun none the less.
Post by: Arvarden on March 16, 2005, 09:50:00 AM
Football is exactly what it states on the tin, you kick a ball with your foot and you do not use your hands unless you are a goalie.
If you choose to tarnish our sport with your own made up sport please use the correct terminology.
:jester:
Post by: Hercules Q Einstein on March 17, 2005, 06:49:00 PM
QUOTE(caster420 @ Mar 10 2005, 09:18 PM)
Having played both sports in high school, I can definetly say i was in much much better shape after rugby season than football season. You are phyical for the entire duration of a rugby game, where as in football you get too many breaks in play. You have an all out physical competition (running, weights, etc..) and i bet rugby players would win overall.
Caster.
Caster.
I dont mean Footaball players are in better shape, i mean NFL players are.
The NFL pays more money than any rugby league, so common sense says they will get the best athlets (why pay someone millions if you could get someone better).
Also you cant complain that most QBs are scared to get hit or cant take a hit without pads becuase its against NFL players who are great tacklers.
I bet Ray Lewis hit way harder than any rugby player.
This post has been edited by Hercules Q Einstein: Mar 18 2005, 02:51 AM
Post by: Baner on March 18, 2005, 11:32:00 AM
QUOTE
why pay someone millions if you could get someone better
AKA flithy rich idiots who can comit murder and get off innocent cause of thier millions in cash? *cough*You're buddy Ray Lewis*cough*
Just because American football teams have millions of dollars to toss around getting players, doesn't mean they are going to get the best players. Name one football player that was drafted outside the United States to play the sport for an American team. Then name all the countries that play Rugby and figure the odds of better players coming from a large number of countries to the number of football players that come from one(two if you count Canada as a country.
).Here's another discussion like the one here about the same topic.
This Coldfuse guy made a pretty good comparison too.
Post by: Striker911 on March 18, 2005, 12:21:00 PM
Post by: Hercules Q Einstein on March 18, 2005, 12:40:00 PM
QUOTE(Striker911 @ Mar 18 2005, 06:51 PM)
i dunno how rugby is played at all if you have to tackel them or not but i mean think about it would you really want Ray Lewis coming after you with no protection gear on? i mean You would get killed
Exactly.
Post by: Hercules Q Einstein on March 18, 2005, 12:46:00 PM
QUOTE(Baner @ Mar 18 2005, 06:38 PM)
AKA flithy rich idiots who can comit murder and get off innocent cause of thier millions in cash? *cough*You're buddy Ray Lewis*cough*
Just because American football teams have millions of dollars to toss around getting players, doesn't mean they are going to get the best players. Name one football player that was drafted outside the United States to play the sport for an American team. Then name all the countries that play Rugby and figure the odds of better players coming from a large number of countries to the number of football players that come from one(two if you count Canada as a country. ;) ).
Here's another discussion like the one here about the same topic.
This Coldfuse guy made a pretty good comparison too.
Just because American football teams have millions of dollars to toss around getting players, doesn't mean they are going to get the best players. Name one football player that was drafted outside the United States to play the sport for an American team. Then name all the countries that play Rugby and figure the odds of better players coming from a large number of countries to the number of football players that come from one(two if you count Canada as a country. ;) ).
Here's another discussion like the one here about the same topic.
This Coldfuse guy made a pretty good comparison too.
Your links have one big problem. They compare some dudes time playeiny both sports. I am only talking about NFL and whatever the best rugby players are. I belive the NFL has the best athletes in all of sports other than Boxing and NHL.
This post has been edited by Hercules Q Einstein: Mar 18 2005, 08:46 PM
Post by: Baner on March 18, 2005, 01:28:00 PM
QUOTE(Hercules Q Einstein @ Mar 18 2005, 01:10 PM)
Exactly.
So more violence makes for a better game?
QUOTE
Your links have one big problem. They compare some dudes time playeiny both sports. I am only talking about NFL and whatever the best rugby players are. I belive the NFL has the best athletes in all of sports other than Boxing and NHL.
Really depends on your definition of athelete.
-Rugby players play both Offence and Defense, NFL has two different teams.
-All Rugby players have to be able to pass, kick, and run the ball, NFL's setup(with breaks inbetween each play) allow for each player to have a specific job.
-Rugby players have to play the entire 80 minutes(I believe with 3 subs per game) with only a sparring amount of timeouts, NFL players have breaks between each play, 3 different types of teams per team, and breaks between quarters. Hell the even have a break when the play time hits 2 minutes.
My definition of a better athelete would be a triathelist, rather then a sprinter who can run faster then the triathelist. The triathelist is better rounded then the sprinter who specializes in the 100M or whatever.
As for NFL players having "the best athletes in all of sports other than Boxing and NHL." What makes you come to the conclusion? What about the real football?(You know, the most popular sport in the world, besides America) With your assumptions that NFL and Boxers are the best atheletes, I have to say that more violence = better atheletes to you, atleast that's the only conclusion I can draw from it.
You're right, those links are of personal experiences of lower-end leagues, but you get a better view of the game if you've tried them both. The amount of running done in a high school game of football, and a Pro game isn't going to be much different, the same is for Rugby.
Post by: yaazz on March 18, 2005, 10:02:00 PM
Post by: TwinZ on March 22, 2005, 08:07:00 AM
Post by: aswilbourn on March 22, 2005, 10:17:00 AM
QUOTE(Hercules Q Einstein @ Mar 18 2005, 07:16 PM)
I am only talking about NFL and whatever the best rugby players are. I belive the NFL has the best athletes in all of sports other than Boxing and NHL.
You my friend are an idiot! End of story.
Post by: shavedrat on March 23, 2005, 02:25:00 PM
This ain't exactly a valid question, but I would say overall rugby probably has the players in the best shape. You also have to take into account that this is a US vs the rest of the world question. Canada's football players are tiny and suck, hence why they play in canada (yes I know canada is CFL not NFL.) Who's to say Water Polo doesnt have the best athletes?
Post by: gcskate27 on March 23, 2005, 03:50:00 PM
but id go with soccer players being in the best shape, then rugby...
Post by: xboxbox451 on March 23, 2005, 06:14:00 PM
For instance, Rugby players are conditioned for endurance and power, while NFL players are conditioned for immense blocking power and evasive sprints.
Post by: Hercules Q Einstein on March 23, 2005, 11:19:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ Mar 23 2005, 10:20 PM)
me...
but id go with soccer players being in the best shape, then rugby...
but id go with soccer players being in the best shape, then rugby...
If your going to bring in other sports i dont see how you can say anyone is in better shape than a Boxer.
30-60 minutes of you getting pounding on (no one else to rely on) but still going, i dont think any sport can out do that.
QUOTE
You my friend are an idiot! End of story.
Yes becuase you had alot of good points.... oh wait you had none.
Jackass.
Post by: blinksoad07 on April 09, 2005, 08:06:00 PM
Post by: Northcarolina ReDn3k on April 09, 2005, 08:14:00 PM
QUOTE(Hercules Q Einstein @ Mar 17 2005, 08:19 PM)
I dont mean Footaball players are in better shape, i mean NFL players are.
The NFL pays more money than any rugby league, so common sense says they will get the best athlets (why pay someone millions if you could get someone better).
Also you cant complain that most QBs are scared to get hit or cant take a hit without pads becuase its against NFL players who are great tacklers.
I bet Ray Lewis hit way harder than any rugby player.
The NFL pays more money than any rugby league, so common sense says they will get the best athlets (why pay someone millions if you could get someone better).
Also you cant complain that most QBs are scared to get hit or cant take a hit without pads becuase its against NFL players who are great tacklers.
I bet Ray Lewis hit way harder than any rugby player.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
your joking right??
rugby is definatly more hardcore.Just because they are fat and then just land on you dosnt mean they are stronger.
Post by: blinksoad07 on April 09, 2005, 11:34:00 PM
Post by: aswilbourn on April 11, 2005, 06:58:00 AM
http://www.big-boys..../rugbyhits.html
Post by: Arvarden on April 16, 2005, 12:05:00 PM
Post by: elfey1 on April 16, 2005, 02:02:00 PM
QUOTE
Yea. they are some hard tackles but its not like that happens every tackle. most of those were hideously high, and should think that most players got warned/off for doin it. I think that should be stressed to Americans who probably havent watched much rugby that it isnt a legal tackle when so high... its is a great game as well as a brawl.
i do think if a rugby player and a pro (american) football player had a fight, the big bastard rugby guy would win 9 out of 10... watch some of the hits... even after being smashed they dont even drop the ball
Post by: xboxbox451 on April 17, 2005, 12:04:00 AM
If we wanted to compete in Rugby, we'd send our NFL rejects to stomp on the rest of the Rugby playin planet.
Post by: elfey1 on April 17, 2005, 06:01:00 AM
Post by: The*galloping*zebra on April 17, 2005, 05:34:00 AM
VS.
Post by: joeyz34 on April 22, 2005, 05:05:00 AM
QUOTE(Striker911 @ Mar 18 2005, 06:51 PM)
i dunno how rugby is played at all if you have to tackel them or not but i mean think about it would you really want Ray Lewis coming after you with no protection gear on? i mean You would get killed
well, you'd make him commit to trying to tackle you then pass the ball to someone running in behind hiim :D
Post by: joeyz34 on April 22, 2005, 05:12:00 AM
mainly because while it's possible for the NFL to take all of their best linebackers and corners and create a great rugby squad, (there's no point in even talking about linemen or qbs, cept maybe vick), those guys have played american football for so long, it's going to be hard for them to adapt to tackling properly, not blocking for runners, what the hell to do with a maul, and little aspects of the game.... it'd be an intresting game to watch though....
same with ruggers in an nfl game... i mean, you could run trips and turn it into a big option play, but it'd have to be out of the shot gun and quick, because i don't see any props getting blocking giant defensive linemen down... and i can't imagine it'd be natural for a rugby player to defend a pass, so we figured this game would have just an insane amount of scoring... which also would be intresting to watch...
Post by: birdkid on November 26, 2005, 03:06:00 PM
Now if a rugby team were to play american football, I think they would have a hard time as well. Being smaller they probably couldn't tackle as effectively, they aren't sprinters so they probably couldn't keep up AND successfully take down an NFL receiver, and if they got tackled they couldn't just get up and start running again. They'd have to start from a few yards back with their QB. Plus when you see someone coming to knock your head off you can't just throw the ball to someone else because they have someone trying to kill them too. Plus you probably have two or three people coming at you at full speed with all their might.
But who am I to judge, I just watched my first rugby game last night and I've hardly played any american football at all.
P.S. For the guy who posted the pictures of the rugby player and the american football player, that's the stupidest comparison I've ever seen. The football player is posing for a picture and the rugby player is actually playing in the mud.
Post by: The*galloping*zebra on November 26, 2005, 07:00:00 PM
QUOTE
P.S. For the guy who posted the pictures of the rugby player and the american football player, that's the stupidest comparison I've ever seen. The football player is posing for a picture and the rugby player is actually playing in the mud.
Post by: YourEyesAreLikeUFOs on November 27, 2005, 06:08:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on November 27, 2005, 05:48:00 PM
QUOTE(birdkid @ Nov 26 2005, 03:37 PM) 
Now if a rugby team were to play american football, I think they would have a hard time as well. Being smaller they probably couldn't tackle as effectively, they aren't sprinters so they probably couldn't keep up AND successfully take down an NFL receiver, and if they got tackled they couldn't just get up and start running again.
shows what 'side' youre on, and how misinformed you are... but at least you acknowledge it towards the end...
Post by: imamafackinhokie on January 12, 2006, 01:52:00 PM
NHL Hockey
Wrestlers (the real wrestling)
NFL
Post by: WhatsArules? on January 27, 2006, 02:51:00 PM
And whoever said football players are more in shape, these rugby dudes do like 100 clapping push-ups befor the game, and the get high as hell to
QUOTE(imamafackinhokie @ Jan 12 2006, 09:23 PM)
Rugby
NHL Hockey
Wrestlers (the real wrestling)
NFL
Wow... thats wrong
NFL
Rugby
Soccer
NHL Hockey
Knitting
Wrestlers (the real wrestling)
I took the liberty of fixing it up for you a little bit
Post by: makaveli91 on January 27, 2006, 06:17:00 PM
Reasons:
1. There are no stoppages in Rugby unless the ball goes out of play, somebody gets a penalty or does something wrong, if the ball is being held up (Like a jump ball in Basketball), or if there is a score.
2. Substitutions. In rugby, you are only allowed to sub out and back in ONCE. If you need to go out after that you can't play anymore.
3. Rugby players hit just as hard as NFL players, and don't wear the protection.
4. Rugby players wear metal cleats. I'm not too sure but i'm almost positive NFL players aren't allowed. Whether its for safety or for the maintenance of the fields. Either way, rugby players get "raked" where they get stomped in the face, or on the arm.
Rugby is a faster paced game. Period. That makes it more physically demanding, and IMHO better. Not always better to watch as they don't have the end zone dances or the theatrics, but skill wise..
Post by: santosphillipcarlo on February 03, 2006, 10:41:00 AM
Pittsburgh Steelers-Rugby Lineup (If I were Coach Bill Cowhrer)
Loosehead Prop-Marvel Smith (Offensive Tackle)
Hooker-Alan Faneca (Offensive Guard)
Tighthead Prop-Kimo van Oelhoffen (Defensive End)
Left Lock-Heath Miller (Tight End)
Right Lock-Jerame Tuman (Tight End)
Blindside Flanker-Joey Porter (Linebacker)
Outside Flanker-James Farrior (Linebacker)
Number 8-Jerome Bettis (Captain, Running Back, power-oriented)
Scrumhalf-Antwaan Randle El (Wide Reciever/Punt Returner, but played quarterback in college)
Flyhalf-Ben Roethlisberger (Vice-Captain, Quarterback)
Left Wing-Hines Ward (Wide Reciever)
Inside Center-Duce Staley (Running Back, power-oriented)
Outside Center-Willie Parker (Running Back, speed-oriented)
Right Wing-Deshea Townsend (Cornerback)
Fullback-Troy Polamalu (Strong Safety)
Front Row
I remember watching the US play Scotland in the Rugby World Cup three years ago. Even though Scotland won, they had to contend with a massive size disadvantage in the scrum (the first eight players on this list are involved), which means that whoever Pittsburgh plays (unless it's another NFL team) would have a size disadvantage in the scrum and would be forced to rely on technique. Not convinced? Smith, Faneca, and van Oelhoffen are all linemen, whether offensive or defensive, so they have experience in throwing their bulk around.
Second Row
To be a good lock, you need to be a large target with good hands for the lineouts while also strong enough to handle scrums, so the first people I looked to were the tight ends, Miller and Tuman. They have blocking experience on offense and have good hands as well, so I'd feel comfortable with them as the Steeler locks.
Back Row
Porter, Farrior, and "The Bus" (Bettis) are not the largest Steelers, but they are all strong in their own right. All three would not be clueless at the scrum because it is not unusual for them to duke it out with the opposition at the line of scrimmage (blitzes for Farrior and Porter, up-the-gut runs for Bettis.) Moreover, Porter and Farrior would certainly lend themselves to open-play defense, while I can't see many rugby players at all stopping Bettis if he gets the ball close to the try line (the goal line in rugby.)
Halves
I initially penciled in Randle El at wing, but he was an option quarterback in college, so his hands would be greatly appreciated at scrumhalf (the scrumhalf restarts play after every tackle, normally with a pass, unless he makes a run and is tackled) and I expect he'd be able to do damage with the occasional dummy (fake pass, then run) and score a try or two. Not only that, but his wideout experience with Pittsburgh means that he's someone for the opposition to worry about if the Steelers can get a good kick forward. Flyhalf was a given with Big Ben Roethlisberger, since he's the best passer on the team and the flyhalf is the closest thing rugby has to a quarterback. He'd have to get used to lateralling pitching and tossing rather than overhand spirals forward, but that overhand could be useful as a lateral if he wants to get the ball out wide quickly.
Centers
This is a position very similar to running back, so it was fairly easy picking these out. Parker is not Marshall Faulk or Shaun Alexander, but he can blast through a hole and pick up a handful of ground before you can blink, so he was a near-given at outside center. Meanwhile, Staley made the squad because of his once being a starter for the Eagles and his power.
Back Three (wings + fullback)
When trying to create a rugby lineup for an American football team, I like to put one wide reciever and one cornerback at wing and then a safety at fullback because the back three have to be strong both on offense and defense. All three of these are fleetfooted enough for the task, with Ward having a very good pair of pass-catching hands, Townsend having coverage experience, and Polamalu being especially fast. He normally plays safety, but he is fast to the point that I can see him providing an extra spark on offense, because his mentality after an interception is "try to score".
Strengths (some suggested by you): good positional sense, physical talent, try-scoring ability, good defensive backfield, size and pushing power in scrum
Weaknesses (some suggested by you): not used to two-way play, kicking ability
Some other notes concerning this:
-Team England wing Ben Cohen was once scouted by an unidentified NFL squad.
-Another Team England player, flyhalf Jonny Wilkinson, made 4 penalties (field goals in rugby) and the winning drop goal (drop kick) in the Rugby World Cup final against Australia-with a Charger scout in the stands.
-Former Team England left lock and captain Martin Johnson is a self-confessed NFL fanatic and traveled with English goalkeeper David James to Seattle and San Francisco to shoot a documentary featuring the Seahawks and 49ers entitled "Beyond The NFL" for British network Sky One. Moreover, in a recent BBC interview, Johnson argued that while less stamina is demanded in American football, it is more physical.
This post has been edited by santosphillipcarlo: Feb 3 2006, 06:59 PM
Post by: Crystal Ice on February 03, 2006, 01:47:00 PM
Therefore, I see them as too seperate sports that DO have some similarities, but not enough to be fully compared on an equal scale.
Post by: _iffy on February 05, 2006, 09:28:00 PM
these two sports are played by athletes. The games just have different rules.
if you gave them each a month to learn each others game(rules/gameplay), they could all play as effectivly in the new sport.
either athlete could play either game well.
This post has been edited by _iffy: Feb 6 2006, 05:29 AM
Post by: gert83 on January 18, 2007, 06:09:00 AM
There are rugby players who would be great at football if they knew the game. Think of the impact Polynesians have made on college and NFL football, then think that rugby is the national sport of every polynesian nation bar American Samoa and Hawaii, so imagine how much potential Polynesian NFL material there is currently playing in the Super 14, or turning out for Fiji or Samoa at rugby. Guys like Jonah Lomu from Tonga, who weighed 260lbs and could run 10.7 secs for 100m are an example. Even before he was ill, he got dropped because he had no endurance - but with stats like that he might have been a great in the NFL.
League and Union rugby players have been scouted periodically by the NFL. not only Ben Cohen, but also Wendell Sailor, Jonny Wilkinson and Adam MacDougall.
Of course, if Americans took rugby seriously the pool of athletes available would make for an amazing rugby team, but you might be surprised that, because of the differenecs between the games, some of the NFL stars might not be in it!
If you don't think rugby players hit then watch these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfa1b3SKuRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZPZLnA_HWc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf4xXQBaRmQ
nd u might enjoy the Polynesian Haka war dance before this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwAPmdUQwbw
Post by: awal on January 31, 2007, 11:36:00 AM
not nfl, but still a really good hit:
football has more head-to-head contact.
And that guy who put knitting about real wrestling... well he needs his head checked. I ruptured my spleen wrestling.
Post by: Shoue on February 05, 2007, 11:31:00 AM
Post by: deadparrot on February 05, 2007, 12:09:00 PM
I have played both Rugby and American Football in school (yes, in England!). When we play rugby, arms get broken, knees get dislocated, and faces get stamped on.
When we play American Football (full contact, no pads), everyone walks away just slightly muddy.
In my personal opinion, American Football is dead boring to play, but it's an improvement over Football (personally, I don't like it - call me crazy if you wish!). However, rugby is fast-paced and doesn't stop unless we have a serious injury or a lighning strike near the pitch.
In my opinion, NFL players may have a chance in a fair game, but if you play dirty (like most of our guys) with full on face punches in the scrum and knees into the jaw, most of them would find themselves lying in hospital with serious concussions.
Post by: gasclown on February 05, 2007, 01:11:00 PM
I garantee you it is only North Americans who would back NFL players over their rugby counterparts. The only thing NFL players could possibly have over rugby is speed (generally speaking) and even that is debatable.
Post by: rugbycanada on March 19, 2007, 12:10:00 PM
As far as compraing UFC to boxing goes: its true, boxers might be more fit (football) but NEVER in all athletic areas (pure strength, strength endurance, cardio endurance, mental capacity to perform, agility, speed, technique, attitudinal and knowlege). UFC (rugby) requires all of the above.
A perfect example of the hightened requirements of being a professional rugby player follows the below 2 month training regimen:
Jason Eaton has packed on eight kilograms.
Mils Muliaina is five kilograms heavier than he was in December.
The seams of Keven Mealamu's shirts appear to be having a hard time holding back the advancing mass of muscle
Ali Williams, once a sapling, looks more an oak tree.
"If you took a guy off the street and put him through the same programme as the All Blacks, he would make some improvements. But he would be starting from a much lower base so he would maybe go from being at 40 per cent of his athletic potential to say 60 per cent," Blair told the Herald.
"But with the All Blacks, who already have been doing a lot of training, they are probably starting at 80 per cent. "
If we took the NZ All Blacks, Indianapolis Colts and the Italien Soccer team and threw them into a "neutral" activity testing pure athleticism and not specific skills, NZ would undoubtedly come out ontop.
Soccer has by far the greatest cardio (arobic fitness), football the greatest emphasis on technique, maturity and correct performance, meanwhile rugby has a high quality requirement for anaerobic to arobic transitioning (for 90 minutes continuous), knowledge and adversity, and ofcourse pure and endurance based strength.
Rugby evolved from Soccer as soon as strength and techniques needed to be perfected in order to create a more competitive and high excellence game. Football (American) was last to follow by been developed due to urban pressure for aggresivness and Ad compaigning.
Post by: Tony42077 on April 26, 2007, 11:33:00 PM
QUOTE(rugbycanada @ Mar 19 2007, 06:41 PM)
Rugby evolved from Soccer as soon as strength and techniques needed to be perfected in order to create a more competitive and high excellence game. Football (American) was last to follow by been developed due to urban pressure for aggresivness and Ad compaigning.
So at what point did strength and techniques need to be perfected? It sounds like you've played one rugby too many. Are you just making this up as you go? So we're supposed to believe that U.S. football was created to quench the blood-thirsty urbanites and for commercials. American football was formed as a spin-off from rugby football. The reason why we wear helmets is to protect our teeth, which is something that most Euros aren't too worried about (have you seen their teeth).
Off-topic- Why don't Europeans take better care of their teeth? They must have some nasty smelling breath.
The NFL (or any top U.S. sport) doesn't have any advertising on their uniforms, while almost all professional rugby and soccer teams have advertising on their jerseys. Shameless
If these Euro-rugby players are such great athletes, then why aren't any of them playing in the NFL? A top NFL player's salary is more than double than that of a whole Pro-Rugby team. All of the best U.S. soccer players go to Europe when they want to get paid better, as the U.S. doesn't care enough about soccer to pay it's players top salries.
It seems to me that if these rugby players are so great, they would take one season off to play in the NFL. The money they would make in one season would be more than they make in an entire career of pro-rugby.
It seems to me that money talks and BS walks
Post by: epsilon72 on April 27, 2007, 12:46:00 AM
Post by: Arvarden on April 27, 2007, 06:12:00 AM
QUOTE(Tony42077 @ Apr 27 2007, 06:40 AM)
If these Euro-rugby players are such great athletes, then why aren't any of them playing in the NFL? A top NFL player's salary is more than double than that of a whole Pro-Rugby team. All of the best U.S. soccer players go to Europe when they want to get paid better, as the U.S. doesn't care enough about soccer to pay it's players top salries.
It seems to me that if these rugby players are so great, they would take one season off to play in the NFL. The money they would make in one season would be more than they make in an entire career of pro-rugby.
It seems to me that money talks and BS walks
The reason why our rugby players do not migrate to the NFL for a season or two is because they don't like wearing skin tight lycra. Apparently wearing skin tight lycra around the crotch can reduce a mans sperm count making him feel less of a man.
I've always wondered why NFL players have squeaky voices...now I know why.
Post by: Tony42077 on April 27, 2007, 09:45:00 AM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Apr 27 2007, 01:19 PM)
The reason why our rugby players do not migrate to the NFL for a season or two is because they don't like wearing skin tight lycra. Apparently wearing skin tight lycra around the crotch can reduce a mans sperm count making him feel less of a man.
I've always wondered why NFL players have squeaky voices...now I know why.
Once again you have nothing constructive to add to a thread. Justing trolling again huh? You really are one pathetic piece of Euro-trash. Enjoy your rotten teeth
Post by: deadparrot on April 27, 2007, 10:03:00 AM
QUOTE(Tony42077 @ Apr 27 2007, 06:40 AM)
The reason why we wear helmets is to protect our teeth
Firstly, that's a load of bullshit. You don't need a helmet to protect your teeth. A simple mouth guard is plenty of protection. I play both rugby and american football at school, only one person wears a mouth guard and that's because he plays for the city club.
QUOTE(Tony42077 @ Apr 27 2007, 06:40 AM)
Off-topic- Why don't Europeans take better care of their teeth?
Second, we're not all like Austin Powers.
QUOTE(Tony42077 @ Apr 27 2007, 06:40 AM)
If these Euro-rugby players are such great athletes, then why aren't any of them playing in the NFL? A top NFL player's salary is more than double than that of a whole Pro-Rugby team. All of the best U.S. soccer players go to Europe when they want to get paid better, as the U.S. doesn't care enough about soccer to pay it's players top salries.
It seems to me that if these rugby players are so great, they would take one season off to play in the NFL. The money they would make in one season would be more than they make in an entire career of pro-rugby.
It seems to me that if these rugby players are so great, they would take one season off to play in the NFL. The money they would make in one season would be more than they make in an entire career of pro-rugby.
Rugby is not about money. It's about playing the game and having pride in representing your club. Athletic ability is not defined by your salary.
Now, NFL is much like Football/soccer in the UK. It's all about money.
As the phrase goes, "Rugby is a hooligans sport played by gentlemen, football is a gentleman's sport played by hooligans."
Post by: ruggamon on May 10, 2007, 07:24:00 PM
QUOTE(Shoue @ Feb 6 2007, 06:31 AM)
um.. have you guys have ever Lawrence Taylor. Anyway, to say that an NFL player is not as tough as a rugby player is just flat out wrong. NFL players have trained their entire life and beat out hundreds of thousands of other people just for their shot at NFL football. Linebackers who weigh 240 pounds can run flat out faster than any rugby player. And any football player would gladly get stitches during a game and get back out there, but they are million dollar investments. However I'm basing this off American rugby players, and I hope the rest of the world makes fun of them because they are pretty unimpressive.
Post by: ruggamon on May 10, 2007, 07:54:00 PM
This post has been edited by ruggamon: May 11 2007, 03:01 AM
Post by: clarkt on June 02, 2007, 09:06:00 AM
secondly being a rugby player i am slightly biased but many have said on here that a rugby player couldnt hit/tackle like an NFL player. Bearing this in mind id like to see how many NFl players could have tackled or blasted through Jonah Lomu when he was in his prime becasue i bet there wouldnt be many.
Post by: Solikos on August 27, 2007, 10:34:00 AM
For me the prize would go to Rugby for individual over-all "in-shape and athletic ability."
Why?
American Football is a sport geared at specific tasks. Individuals hone their bodies to complete that task better than any other. This happens with any sport:
A Quarterback has the arm and accuracy
A Receiver has the speed and agility
A Lineback has burst speed and power
And so on...
All rugby players encompass the focus of play, making rugby players are more versatile due to their training and how they hone their bodies and skills. A Forward (similar to a linebacker) may run the ball 10 times in a game, kick the ball, score points, etc. A Back (similar to a Receiver) may make 20 scrums (like trying to block a line backer) in a game. There are also essentially no breaks - you are constantly running between 30-80% speed with many burst sprints mixed in.
For those saying NFL players hit harder? Of course they do, they have protection and thus are able to. Tackling in rugby is NOT the same as tackling in American Football - if you attempted it you would be dead or wishing you were dead in no time. Though I will say that no matter how hard you are hit in either game, it certainly will put you to the test in Rugby.
This isn't a knock to American Football, it's just realizing the specialization that goes into each sport. The more diverse a sport, the more "athletic" the average player will be.
American Football likely has faster runners, harder hitters, further kickers, etc... But rugby will put all of those attributes into a single package.
In the end, it's near impossible to judge individual players such as Lawrence Taylor or Jonah Lomu. They were both great athletes in their own respect. Both would likely excel at the other sport, but probably not to the same magnitude.
It's like saying "Barry Bonds could have been a gold medalist tennis player because he's got lots of home runs... And look at how big his arms are, imagine how hard he could hit the ball."
Then we see how Michael Jordan did with his change.
Post by: ironnica on January 12, 2008, 09:55:00 AM
If nfl players were to try play rugby, it would be a whitewash, any tough man on the pitch would be gone after the first play for maybe 2 or 3 plays.
Although due to game adaptation, the rugby players would probably be beaten, but not by alot. Due to the fact that apart from qb position, rugby has every other position rolled into every player. That and we'd be short a squad of like 30 players
NFL players are fuelled by money, not by pride. This pride gets rugby players up after every play.
Nfl Clubs are given way more money than they know what to do with, so rugby has to compensate with sponsorship on jerseys.
Ronan O'Gara Irish Rugby player, turned down a very generous offer from the dolphins, because of his love for the game.
Id also imagine that he would get pissed off with just having to kick straight ahead of him rather than, as rugby players take kicks, at huge angles. And the fact that he'd have to turn to a blob on d sidelines while waiting for a play.
There should be no debate that a level of an athlete should take into account many skills, not just one.
What is the point in just having strength, or just being fast? To fill just one purpose.
As i said, rugby players have an all round athleticism that they fulfill for 40 minutes continuously a side.
I watched a video on youtube on the hardest nfl hits, and could honestly say that I, a 5' 6 lightweight could have taken all of them except for one, where the guy landed on his head and body went back.
http://ie.youtube.co...feature=related
1min 47 sec into that.
From watching NFL games iv also seen that a running back often waddles in for touchdown because too many opposing players jumped for him, leaving their faces in the shit, and him to keep waddling.
Conditioning: Rugby players cant use steroids, so they're natural powerhouses, who may not have all the strength but wont take long in taking down the opposing player first time.
Its seen in rugby that if a tackle is missed, its your fault. but with NFL and all these people jumping around seems to be effort enough made to justify 10 people missing a tackle.
NFL is where the crunch tackles get you money, The missed tackles, the dive is still good for tv.
Post by: joshlangy5 on February 24, 2008, 06:10:00 AM
1. Obviously other people on the forum are biased too, and just insult others when they have not got a good comeback arguement.
2. More violence dosn't = better/more skillful game.
3. No one has really outlined what you are looking at. At the start it says Athletes, but both sets of players have athletic qualities, albeit from both ends of the spectrum. One person said that NFL players are the best in America and therfore the world.
If you were to put the two sets of players into a game, whther it be AF or Rugby Union, you would therefore have to get the best rugby players from around the world. This would mean the likes of Johnny Wilkinson (best goal kicker in the world-fact), Bryan Habana (Potentially the fastest player in union at the moment), The Caveman (France) Andrew Sheridan (a big pusher in the scrum, despite his relative size), not to mention many other players that would make the shortlist for the best rugby team. This is not forgetting Rugby League players who swap disciplines for their country e.g. Lesley "The Volcano" Vainikolo and Jason Robinson. These players are built like brick outhouses and bloody fast to boot. when watching said players in the Union world cup, they were taking on forwards twice their size and winning.
4. I occasionally watch American Football when it is on Sky Sports, and do not find the tackles that "big" as some of the americans are claiming. Like someone said, the big tackles shown in that rugby video don't happen all the time, and it is the same with American football. And whoever said that Rugby was senseless violence, why in AF does every player on the pitch need to be fighting over nothing? Rugby players fight FOR the ball, AF players just fight.
5. I fell it must also be said that Rugby does appear to be the "harder" man's game. Although the tackles aren't as violent they come thick and fast. Anyone see Wilko at the weekend? Fat lip, bleeding out of his mouth and still scored many drop goals and conversions. American player hurt? He's stretchered off to the expensive locker room with ice baths, hot baths multiple phsyios etc.
However, i don't thick there will ever be a straight game for comparison, as Rugby players have one thing instilled in them through years of training, AF players another.
Post by: gcskate27 on March 04, 2008, 08:57:00 PM
*because thats not ingrained nationalism or anything
Post by: monaroCountry on March 18, 2008, 08:08:00 PM
Solomon Haumono
Bouts: 14
KO: 14
Losses: 0
Drawn: 0
From: http://www.news.com....5001023,00.html
Haumono is a knockout
By Iain Payten
December 12, 2007 12:00am
SOLOMON Haumono would love to be refining his ringcraft, moving, weaving and conquering the battle of mind over fatigue deep into the rounds.
The main problem is his right hand. It keeps knocking blokes out.
Since returning to the ring in 2007 after a five-year absence, the former NRL enforcer has unleashed such ferocity he's dispatched five opponents in the space of seven rounds. In total.
As he attempts to continue his boxing education, Haumono has made such a habit of leaving opponents toes up on the canvas with the opening bell still reveberating that he has spent just sixteen minutes inside the ring this year.
On Monday night Seiaute Mailata became the latest victim of Haumono's devastating right, sent sprawling onto his back with a badly busted nose and a vista of stars.
"I was just fortunate,'' Haumono said yesterday. "I expected him to come forward and I was going to counter but he was a bit cautious. I got him once and then I seen his eyes. I knew he was in trouble.''
Had he been seeing one Haumono instead of three, Mailata might have realised too. The Samoan ended up like Haumono's 12 other professional foes but the scalp of the respected Mailata - who lost on points to former world title challenger Ed Mahone last month - may now serve to kickstart the world title hopes of the former NRL star.
Still ranked only third in the country, Haumono is now keen to fight for the Australian heavyweight title and despite the brevity of his ring time, trainer Johnny Lewis endorses the goal.
"Now is the time to take the shackles off him and let him go for it. There is a good side and a down side (to Haumono's knockout power),'' Lewis says. "Inevitably we are going to be taken to a position where we haven't been yet. But Sol is first and foremost an athlete. He'd handle the (12) rounds no worries.''
Critics have, also inevitably, called on the 32-year-old to start taking on bigger Aussie names like Bob Mirovic and Colin Wilson. Camp Haumono say they've struggled to pin down experienced foes this year, likely due to that right hand.
"But I am keen to step up. I would love to fight for an Australian title,'' Haumono asserts. "My father (Maile) was an Australian champion, and he's a hero to me.''
It's been a good year in the ring but a tough year for the deeply religious Haumono and his family, after his father was charged with a serious assault earlier this year.
"It's sad,'' Haumono says softly. "Dad is a lovely man, he's a humble man. He is not a thug, he is a gentleman.''
Lewis, who once watched Maile Haumono and Tony Mundine senior spar as sons Solomon and Anthony sat nearby in nappies, says Haumono's power reminds him of former world champ Jeff Harding.
"He is a wicked puncher, but he's also got a lovely left jab that'll stand him in good stead when he steps up a class,'' Lewis says.
An aborted association with Don King in 2003 could end seeing Haumono's handlers end up bringing international fighters to Australia, but like a true brawler, Haumono says it's anyone, anywhere.
"If (an Aussie title fight) doesn't arise, then I am not going to get stuck,'' he said. "I will go beyond that. If I'm ready to hit the international scene, then I'll hit it hard.''
World, you've been warned.
Post by: monaroCountry on March 24, 2008, 08:11:00 AM
NFL welcomes Rocca to the NFL
Rocca returns the favor
------------------------------------
From: http://news.ninemsn.....aspx?id=181776
Rocca hoping to score big NFL deal
Having proved his toughness in a baptism of fire to American football, Saverio Rocca is banking on the sheer power of his right boot to land him an NFL contract with the Philadelphia Eagles.
The 33-year-old made an encouraging start to his trial with the club when outkicking incumbent Dirk Johnson for distance as the Eagles gave their duelling punters a half game each in their 27-3 loss to Baltimore on Tuesday.
But Rocca also showed his steel by bouncing straight back from a brutal crash tackle when blindsided by 22-year-old outside linebacker Antwan Barnes after running upfield to help his team-mates defend a kick return.
Rocca, who will get his second chance to impress in Saturday's (AEST) pre-season game against Carolina, lost his helmet in the sickening hit but the former AFL big man said he had no problems getting straight back up.
"It didn't affect me at all actually," Rocca told Sydney radio 2KY.
"If you hit heads like that in AFL you get concussion and you're out for a little while, but it didn't affect me mentally at all.
"The only thing that did hurt a little bit was when I fell on my bum and hit the turf, it was pretty hard.
"I don't think I've ever been blindsided like that, it was an eye-opener but I'm just happy I came out of it pretty good.
"When I got over to the sidelines after I got the hit, all the guys were saying `welcome to the NFL' so it was a good welcome."
Rocca wanted to continue to impress with his long kicking, an area he thinks could give him in edge when the Eagles decide to hand either he or Johnson a contract for the upcoming season.
"They base their decision maybe on a half a dozen things and just being able to kick the ball further is one of them," said Rocca, who kicked a 65-year monster on debut and averaged 48.2 yards per kick to Johnson's 43.7.
"But hopefully it will be the most important one."
As for rugby league, several people got knocked out in round 1 and round 2, several more needed to get their face reconstructed because of big hits. Some bloke named Ben Ross wouldnt have remembered both game 1 and game 2, poor blocke got knocked out in both games.
Ben Ross gets knocked out (round 1) by Josh Perry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Ev8edUMU8
Brett White knocks out Ben Ross (round 2)
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related