Not 2 pages ago Viking33 explained he played american football his whole life growing up and then switched to rugby: So as someone that has played both sports id say hes ideally placed to make the comments hes made. edit: ah obviously he didn't play in the NFL growing up... need coffee.
Rugby vs. Football I don't know anything about Rugby, my argument I made was loosely based on looking up size and forty times of Rugby players and finding faster, bigger football players. Probably easy to debunk but nobody has yet. Vikings22 played football and switched to rugby so in his opinion Rugby players are better athletes? I guess that should just end the argument then because of his vast expertise in both sports. The argument was the best football players would not dominate on a Rugby field, not who are better athletes. If you read my post I said as a whole the Rugby roster is more athletic than an NFL team. He also said bench press doesn't matter in Rugby, again I have no clue but the guys that Durbanite posted were absolutely diesel, if they are not doing bench press then I would be shocked. Also upper body strength seems to be useful in a scrum, again I don't know. I still think given proper training Chris Johnson would be a sick Rugby player, he is faster and more agile than the Rugby players. He would clearly need to learn how to tackle. I also think it would be easier for a NFL player to learn Rugby than the other way around. Honestly both are bad ass mother fuckers. Since this silly debate I have been watching Rugby on Youtube and can not believe the punishment some of them take and dish out. I still stick to my opinion though. I also of course am American and have grown up watching these guys so of course I'm going to side with them, just like Durbanite will side with the Rugby players.
Not really what i meant, i was just saying that as someone with competitive experience in both sports he is better placed than most others here (including myself) to highlight the comparative differences in the way each code's players train and play and what that means if you placed an NFL player into a Rugby game (with no prior training) and vice versa. Im sure he would make an excellent rugby player with the training but id disagree and say a rugby player would adapt quicker to NFL... I have no factual basis for this statement its just my gut feel which is no doubt influenced by my bias for Rugby (having grown up playing the sport and watching it religiously). Agreed.
Not quite. This is essentially what the forwards do in rugby. And not that I can tell, but I think the rugby guys tend to get run at from a greater distance in the pack. Also, never mind that in a tackle you get 200+lb guys running in and hitting you on the ground while you're pinned by a few other 200+lb guys. In NFL it looks like tackle and everyone relaxes. In rugby, you get smashed and keep on getting smashed until a penalty or the ball comes out. Regarding scrums, from memory of when I played it's more about lower body and leg strength. Your upper body is locked in. I'd say a rugby playing going to NFL is going to have a harder time than vice versa for two main reasons: the extra gear they have to wear and the fact that it's such a fucking confusing game as far as rules go. Sitting watching it is one thing, thinking about it on the fly is another matter. As an interesting note, the NFL has from time to time drafted AFL (Australian Football League) players in as kickers. It's a totally different game, showing some similarities to gaelic football (I think). Not that I'm a fan, but there's a game with athleticism and toughness. At the very least it's big guys running at each full pelt from all directions.
Gaelic football and AFL are pretty simmilar games. They draft a national squad of AFL players to compete against a Gaelic football representative team every year and the AFL players do ok. Recruiting AFL players to the NFL is just about recruiting specialist kickers who can take a tackle as far as the NFL is concerned. Most of the recruits are guys who's knees can't take a full match of AFL anymore but are still up to warming up and maybe spending 5 minutes on the field in NFL. Reality is just that there isn't the same kind of development push for specialist kickers in the US that there is in other football playing countries*. And AFL players don't die the first time a kick attempt goes foul and they get tackled, unlike Soccer players. *Calm down ladies, I'm not saying that nobody in America can Kick. I'm just saying that it's not like you encourage your kids to spend all day nailing field goals so that they'll get a scholarship. If it makes you feel any better - British people can't jump for shit for pretty much the same reason - being a specialist kicker in the UK will probably at least get you laid. Having a 40" vertical and living in Nottingham will just make people assume that you're foriegn.
I'll go ahead and try to cover everyone's points that I can remember here to the best of my ability. For a little more background: I play rugby now at three positions: Loosehead prop (the front row of the scrum), hooker (front row, between the two props), and inside center (basically the fullback in NFL terms). I'm undersized as a prop: I'm 5'10 and during season will max out around 225-230. Most high level props are "around" 6'0-6'1 and 250-260 lbs. As a hooker, I'm ideally built and as an inside center, I'm probably a couple inches short, but strong and fast enough to compete. I play for Savannah as my home club in men's Division III as a prop and hooker. I play for the Georgia Under 23 All Star Selects as a prop and inside center and for the Gypsies Men's Selects as a hooker and inside center. I played high school football as a defensive end, middle linebacker, center, longsnapper and gunner (kickoff and punt block) in class A (small school) football. I received two "academic" offers from Division III schools to longsnap and play outside linebacker. I passed due to a better academic and portfolio offer from my current school. I picked up rugby through a friend of mine and have been playing for 3 years and hopefully will find my way to the U23 All South team in November and the U23 National Team next May. Athletically: Someone brought up hockey vs soccer and tried to apply it to rugby vs football. It's not the same. As a forward like me, the rest times in rugby are spend at 3/4 speed keeping up with the faster guys on the outside. If I'm not working to keep up, I'm mashing face with some prick from the other team inside a ruck or at the bottom of a ruck trying to keep my head from getting stomped in. Take a football tackle, a single tackle and hold the drive and physical exertion for between 10 and 20 seconds. That's one ruck. Now wash, rinse and repeat 50-70 times in the course of a match. Until you've been in a rugby match, I can't really describe the exhaustion and damage your entire body experiences. When I played middle linebacker (one of the more athletic positions on the football field), sure I was tired. I was playing both ways and on everything but kickoff return. But I was making contact with a running back 10-15 times/game. As a center I was making contact another 40 perhaps. It's tiring, nobody's arguing that. But it's an entirely new level in rugby. What those international players do is unreal to me. An average front row forward scrums perhaps 15x a match. In professional rugby, there is 4.5 tons of force being driven into the front rows every scrum. That's the equivalent to a 35 mph head on collision 15x in 80 minutes. My trainer worked 38 knots out of my back after one match with the Gypsies (one step below Super League here in the US). Welcome to being a forward, dude. But instead of an 8 yard separation (running back 4 yards deep, linebacker 4 yards deep), it's around 10 meters+ in rugby. The defense is 5 meters back from the ruck and a good forward is 5-10 meters back opposite at the start of his run for the ball in order to get a full head of steam. This is also why the defense rarely nails a runner head on unless points or key position are at stake. The body can't handle it 20x/match. You take the legs and give up an extra meter. It's not about dick measuring smash hits, it's about smart hits and letting the guys around you mash the runner when he hits the ground. Upper body strength is great for a front row forward. However, the chest is only used to balance out the muscles of the back and posterior chain. Huge, overdeveloped pecs have no use in rugby. We don't block or push in the same way football players do. All of the force comes from the legs. Instead of a bench press competition, do a squat rep competition. I guarantee rugby players would embarrass NFL players in a squat rack (and not doing bicep curls you guido faggots). Yes, he could be with 3 or 4 years of development and rugby specific training. It would be easier for SOME football players. Linemen would make terrible rugby players, as would quarterbacks, kickers, and a lot of receivers. That's 10/12 offensive players that would be potentially useless on a rugby pitch. I say receivers too, because the ability to streak down the sideline or catch a ball is already expected of back line rugby players. You can't teach defensive aggression. Kicking (yes, everyone in the back line kicks) and strategic ball placement are also important and receivers can't do that. Athleticism has nothing to do with it. Tight ends, maybe if you can teach them how to take a hit and teach them to tackle guys that are just as good-if not better athletically. A strong fullback or very fast halfback is the only offensive player rugby could use. Again, only if they can kick and tackle. A defensive football player would be better off. They need to learn different tackling technique, but the aggression and love for contact is already there. There's where your potential ruggers are. Yet, any rugby player at any rugby position could potentially be a football player once he knows the rules and strategy of football. The athleticism is already there and the bloodthirst on defense is already there. Get them used to pads and schemes and you have a good football player. Same size as an O-lineman, 12% body fat. I've been there and done that. As a linebacker, one of the most involved players in the game. My football conditioning was outstanding- played both ways and special teams. My rugby conditioning going in was horrible. I could play 48 minutes of football and be very tired, but not feeling near death and still make 20 tackles and record 6 sacks in one game. Going into rugby in that condition, I would be out around the 20 minute mark. Trust me dude, I'm not trying to downplay football but you're off on this point. Tell Adrian Peterson to run the ball up the middle six times with no break between plays. Then tell him to play defense with no break for another 6 plays. Then tell him to chase a punt 60 meters (still no break). Then repeat until the play gets blown dead after two minutes. Good luck. If he can do that, I'll tip my hat and buy you both beers. Re read my earlier posts. It's not being fast in one forty. It's being fast in the 40 after running 6-14 miles (what the average rugby player covers in 80 minutes of rugby dependent on position). I know exactly what I'm talking about and I guarantee I know more relevant info about rugby training, conditioning and physical requirements than Wikipedia does. But enough ranting and rambling for tonight. I'll answer more questions to the best of my ability tomorrow. Good to see a reasonable debate on here.
Apparently confusing conditioning with athleticism is a nerd debate that none of us thought would go this far. I love all of the arguments about how somebody is a better athlete, because they are in better shape to move continuously. When the whole point is, could we take a top level NFL player, train him to play rugby (this is inclusive of conditioning), and see how he competes in rugby? And the answer is just like in soccer, cricket, fucking badminton, or whatever else you should be able to take an NFL/NBA caliber athlete and make them one of the best in the world at another sport.
Wait, was the original debate which league has the best athletes? If so I don't see how anyone can say rugby players are even in the same galaxy as NFL guys. It's simple economics, the athletes with the most potential will compete in the sport that pays the most. And to the conditioning point, you're absolutely right, that's a learned trait, almost anyone can be a marathon runner with the proper training. Very few people can be as big, strong and quick as an NFL player no matter how hard they try. If the question is which sport benefits the most from athleticism, well I don't know enough about rugby to truly say, but it does seem like the players utilize more facets of athleticism so I may have to give it the nod. As for the sport that benefits the most from raw athleticism, I would have to say MMA or Olympic weightlifting. Strength, speed, coordination, flexibility and balance are all paramount to success in both sports. But they pay shit so there's really no top tier athletes in either sport.
Truthfully I don't even know what the debate was anymore since it's come down to Runnin Forever vs. But They're Just So Fucking Big and Fast.
Viking22 PLEASE address this. Your previous post was excellent and answered many questions, the original debate was that if an NFL player was put on the pitch he would dominate. You keep saying that they would not be able to play because of conditioning, please assume they are conditioned. My point is that a bigger, stronger, faster athlete would have no problem playing at a high level. So assuming Vernon Davis 6-5, 250 Lb. with a 4.38 forty had the conditioning I think he could be excellent. I do have a question and it may sound quite naive. Please don't answer that "Rugby guys are tougher" how without pads is the game not filled with injuries? I have seen some bad pictures of guys with their knees bent backwards but I wonder how half of them play a full season. They also seem to try for contact while running, that could be wrong but I don't see many jukes or cuts. I realize in football it's bigger guys hitting smaller guys as well as getting hit blindly because they are concentrating on the ball but I still have to ask.
One of the biggest nerd fights that I've seen over the years that I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned yet is the fight between console fanboys. Is the Microsoft XBOX, Sony Playstation, or Nintendo console (gamecube/wii) the best? Obviously the correct answer, currently, would be the XBOX 360. Sure the PS3 has bluray support, but the games are better on the xbox, and xbox live beats the pants off of Sony's Playstation Store or whatever. And even though the Wii is selling like crazy, no true nerd/gamer would ever think it was the better console.
I'll bite on this one. As much of a badass that Kirk was, we all know that Captain Picard was the better Starfleet officer and the superior starship captain. Only a fool would think otherwise.
Let's recap. A) You played football your whole life and got a valueless non-scholarship "offer" from a D III school to play special teams, where you were almost certainly as attractive to them for your academic prowess as your athletic prowess. plus: B)You played rugby for 3 years and are targeting a spot on the national team. equals: C) Better, more competitive athletes play football than rugby. Also, see Frank's post: NFL players are more highly compensated than world class rugby players by a factor of 20. Follow the money, understand the incentives. End nerd fight.
I think a better question is which of the three companies is the biggest extortionist to its fans: -Microsoft for charging to play online -Sony for removing PS2 backwards compatibility from the PS3 -Nintendo for lulling players into a false sense of savings by charging less for the console but selling overpriced accessories that are mandatory for enjoying any of the games I have the Wii and PS3, Wii was fun for the first 6 months or so, but the novelty wore off. PS3 I still use almost everyday as a bluray player, to stream netflix (yes I know the other 2 can do this as well) and I still game on it a lot. I've only played Xbox a little and can't get use to the controller, and don't game enough to justify paying for the online service, but I do recognize that for a hardcore gamer Xbox is probably way better. Still really bitter about not being able to play PS2 games on PS3, my good TV doesn't have S-video or regular A/V ports so I have to play it on my tiny 37" TV, it's terrible.
The best reduction of the Batman vs. Superman debate I've seen. In webcomic form. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=608" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=608</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=609" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=609</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=610" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=610</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=611" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=611</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=612" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=612</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=613" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=613</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=614" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=614</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=615" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=615</a>
Haha...exactly. I can see why people like the story/narrative of Batman, but when it comes to superhero debates, Batman loses to all of them because...he's not a fucking superhero! He's a rich guy with a bat fetish. No superpowers at all (even his villains are powerless). Does he do cool things and bang hot girls? Obviously. Would I do the same if I could? Yeah, but I wouldn't pick a blind rodent as my symbol. Specific to the Batman vs Superman debate, pro-Bat-fans always come up with some elaborate scenario that ALWAYS ends with Batman having kryptonite...something a three year old could use to defeat him. How this shows Batmans skills is never evident, but it's the ONLY chance he'd have (seriously, what's he gonna do, punch Superman?). You know who could beat Superman? Doomsday - a psychopathic serial killing monster from another galaxy, that's who. Quick, name two things Batman could take out of his faggy purse-belt that could harm Superman. Also, <a class="postlink" href="http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1884973" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1884973</a>