Rugby for wimps in armour....

ozhawk66

RuggieBear wrote:

Sure they are.....all those really difficult courses the colleges put on (coupled with easy grading) to make sure they don't flunk.

The playbook for an NFL team reads like a novel, where a rugby league playbook amounts to a comic book.

Rented Mule

Diamondmaker wrote:

Personally I feel pro rugby players are some of the most rounded athletes there are. Give me a good argument how another team sports man requires a more complete range of skills and physical attributes....

They have to be built for speed and power and have to use a whole range of skills.

The National Hockey League of North America comes to mind. The NHL is the 'elite' hockey league in the World with teams made up of players from 18 countries.

82 game regular season with the most gruelling playoff/championship format of any sport around.

The average NHL'er is 6'1 204lbs with a few ranging up to @270lbs. They can skate up to 25 mph and with that speed and size can hit with a ferociousness not rivalled in any other sport. The ice surface and boards do not lend themselves to the timid.

Players can shoot the vulcanised rubber puck in excess of 100 mph. Broken bones and missing teeth are common place within the sport.

Players also need to be handy with fists (on occassion) with fights breaking out in most games. Generally every team will have a few 'enforcers' to take care of business, but players are often called on to protect themselves.

The overall skill of the game as well is incredible. It truly is something that needs to be experienced to be appreciated. Watching it on television does not translate as well as being there.

Not taking anything away from the rugby players, but here is the sport that 'requires a more complete range of skills and physical attributes'

Big_G

Rented Mule wrote:

The National Hockey League of North America comes to mind. The NHL is the 'elite' hockey league in the World with teams made up of players from 18 countries.

82 game regular season with the most gruelling playoff/championship format of any sport around.

The average NHL'er is 6'1 204lbs with a few ranging up to @270lbs. They can skate up to 25 mph and with that speed and size can hit with a ferociousness not rivalled in any other sport. The ice surface and boards do not lend themselves to the timid.

Players can shoot the vulcanised rubber puck in excess of 100 mph. Broken bones and missing teeth are common place within the sport.

Players also need to be handy with fists (on occassion) with fights breaking out in most games. Generally every team will have a few 'enforcers' to take care of business, but players are often called on to protect themselves.

The overall skill of the game as well is incredible. It truly is something that needs to be experienced to be appreciated. Watching it on television does not translate as well as being there.

Not taking anything away from the rugby players, but here is the sport that 'requires a more complete range of skills and physical attributes'

It is true that ice hockey has a very high physical requirement in terms of strength and skill. In the terms of the previous poster about rugby, you are right that ice hockey is probably slightly more demanding, however on two points I feel you neglect to mention, it is less superior.

Firstly, line changes - ice hockey has roll on, roll off substitutions, resulting in some players playing as little as one third of a game. Rugby players do not have that luxury.

Secondly, rugby is a more strategic game. There is very little strategy (plenty of tactics) in ice hockey.

As far as padding goes, I have played ice hockey, AF and rugby and I can say the hits are by far the hardest in ice hockey. This is because of the type of hit (impact vs. tackle), forces involved and surfaces impacted.

In the AF vs. rugby debate, harder hits are a function of pads in current games, not the other way around. You don't wear more pads because the hits are harder in AF, you hit harder because the pads are there. This is a psychological phenomenon more than anything. In the historical evolution of both codes, more pads were as a result of bigger hits. Certain American tactics such as the 'Flying Wedge' meant that the North American football became extremely dangerous very quickly.

As far as rugby elitism goes, using the parallel development of the Celtic Tiger and Munster support is absolutely moronic. Rugby in Munster is a parochial sport, much like GAA in other parts, and has very little association with elitism. It's all those soccer players down there that are snobs, with their brand new Hiaces and whatnot.

So now.

poobum

LOTP wrote:

oh yeah, that doesnt go in the big rugby schools.

i play for terenure(one of big leinster rugby schools) and this never happens! as ruggie bear said, we take a state exam! person correcting dosent know who are! papers are sent to impartial correcters, they get a number, thats it! how can u possibly assume that they are being given passes? when it isnt feasable at all!

Chucky the tree

"the sprotsman i support are smarter then the ones you support so there!"



Love it.

Wompa1

RuggieBear wrote:

Not the ones i know of

At the end of the day, the pupils in school still have to do the Leaving Cert. It's not as if the they will be passd just coz they played rugby.

I have a friend that went to a big Rugby school and I won't name names or anything cus I was told in confidence but we'll just say they were given a helping hand in their Leaving Certs...My lips are sealed though!...Made me mad as hell, I'm 5ft10 152lbs and have no skills at all, I'm weak as a kitten and dumb as an Ox, I'm the one that needed the help!

Chucky the tree

bull****.

briancarroll15

Put Reggie Bush in at centre or DeAngelo Hall on the wing and they'd last a rugby game pretty easily. In terms of pure athleticism, Calvin Johnson is probably one of the best specimens you'll ever find at 6'5", 240 odd pounds with a 45-inch vertical leap and a 4.35 40 yard dash. There's not really any disputing that an athlete of that caliber would be outstanding in any sport having grown up in it.

You'll find guys like this in rugby too, like Lomu, RocoCoco and a few others, but these types are just far more common in the NFL.

The rugby players do certainly win out on endurance and, in 9 out of 10 cases, ball handling skills. They fall far short in the strength, speed, agility and size aspects though.

Personally, being a munster man, I love watching both games and I think that what the rugby players lack in athleticism, they make up for in ingenuity and constant reaction to dynamic game situations.

Neil3030

briancarroll15 wrote:

Put Reggie Bush in at centre....

I would LOVE to see this happen, particularly if he was serviced by some decent backs. He'd probably leave holes all over the place in terms of tackling, but dear lord that side-step...

BENJAMIN61

nfl is much better than rugby

BizzyC

The level of athleticism found in american football far outdoes rugby.
It's all down to the training regimes and talent pool found at a high school level.

In high school football you have 50,000 odd players around the country, many of whom approach the game and train to the standard of professional athletes. Of these, only about 10,000 are given the opportunity to play in college and again undergo more rigerous training, ecuivilant to a pro.
Of that 10,000 roughly 300 make it into professional football.

When you make a selection of 300 out of 50,000, all of whom have centered their lives around training and playing the sport since they were about 15, you really get the best athletes possible.

Compare that to rugby. Sure you get some great atheletes, but they're more rare. Show me a junior cup squad who'll undergo 2 a day training sessions during the summer, then during school undergo weight training, chalkboard sessions and several sessions of full practice a week.

Pherekydes

BizzyC wrote:

In high school football you have 50,000 odd players around the country, many of whom approach the game and train to the standard of professional athletes. Of these, only about 10,000 are given the opportunity to play in college and again undergo more rigerous training, ecuivilant to a pro.
Of that 10,000 roughly 300 make it into professional football.

The numbers are much higher:

“The greatest challenge is to identify where the teams are,” Hallenbeck said. “We did a study last November.”

The results of the study estimated 90,600 teams with 267,000 coaches, 55,000 officials and 2,216,000 players.

“There are 1.1 million high school football players and 1,600 professionals,” Michalek told the coaches.

see here

BizzyC

Slow coach wrote:

The numbers are much higher:



see here

wow, 22 times higher.

thanks for the correction, makes my point stronger.

carlowboy

BizzyC wrote:

The level of athleticism found in american football far outdoes rugby.
It's all down to the training regimes and talent pool found at a high school level.

In high school football you have 50,000 odd players around the country, many of whom approach the game and train to the standard of professional athletes. Of these, only about 10,000 are given the opportunity to play in college and again undergo more rigerous training, ecuivilant to a pro.
Of that 10,000 roughly 300 make it into professional football.

When you make a selection of 300 out of 50,000, all of whom have centered their lives around training and playing the sport since they were about 15, you really get the best athletes possible.

Compare that to rugby. Sure you get some great atheletes, but they're more rare. Show me a junior cup squad who'll undergo 2 a day training sessions during the summer, then during school undergo weight training, chalkboard sessions and several sessions of full practice a week.

That's an awful comparison I'm afraid. True, in American football, the training is more intense in High School, but do you think the likes of Owens, the Mc Nabbs could run around for 80 minutes with just a 15 minute break in the middle week in, week out? I can't! I doubt any American Football player can run as fast as Tonderai Chavanga (sub 10 second 100m, still a shíte player mind).

Having said that, there are things that American Football players would be far superior at too. Point is, it's stupid to compare physiques and fitness because requirements are different.

JC 2K3

meh, if there's such a difference in standard between the quality of athletes in Rugby and American Football, then why aren't the US rugby team, most of whom've played American Football for most of their lives, raping everyone in the RWC? In fact, why have they only won 2 matches in 4 competitions?

Pherekydes

carlowboy wrote:

I doubt any American Football player can run as fast as Tonderai Chavanga (sub 10 second 100m, still a shíte player mind).

Who? When did he do that? Never heard of him, and I've been following athletics for 36 years and compiling sprint stats for 15.

Pherekydes

JC 2K3 wrote:

...most of whom've played American Football for most of their lives...

There's your answer. Rugby is a different game.

RuggieBear

Slow coach wrote:

Who? When did he do that? Never heard of him, and I've been following athletics for 36 years and compiling sprint stats for 15.

springbok winger.

carlowboy

RuggieBear wrote:

springbok winger.

He's orginally from Zimbabwe and was going to compete internationally but was plucked by the SARU with a better offer. A poach.

carlowboy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Varndell

Varndell can do 10.8 in socks on grass too. Very impressive but I wouldn't call him the fastest.

Habana while not having a high top speed has the best acceleration of anyone I've seen in the sport.

carlowboy

BTW, slow coach, if American Football players are so great, how come there are so many players poached from the Pacific Islands with a Rugby Union background???

Pherekydes

carlowboy wrote:

BTW, slow coach, if American Football players are so great, how come there are so many players poached from the Pacific Islands with a Rugby Union background???

New Zealand do exactly the same. If NZ rugby players are so great how come NZ poaches talent from the Pacific Islands?

tallaghtoutlaws

carlowboy wrote:

BTW, slow coach, if American Football players are so great, how come there are so many players poached from the Pacific Islands with a Rugby Union background???

Ok how does this help your argument either. The reason they are recruited not poached because as both the Rugby and American Football world Folk those parts are pure natural ability with strength and speed to boot. Why would the NFL recruit these guys same reason as any Rugby team im sure.

carlowboy

They are poached from their rugby background and the reason I brought it up is because Slow coach and some others in this thread seem to think that only people brought up around American football are good enough to make it. It shows that an awful lot of rugby players would be well able which some think they wouldn't be able to. That's how it helps my point.

Of course rugby would do the same but I don't go trolling on this forum thinking that my sport is somehow superior to another.

tallaghtoutlaws

carlowboy wrote:

They are poached from their rugby background and the reason I brought it up is because Slow coach and some others in this thread seem to think that only people brought up around American football are good enough to make it. It shows that an awful lot of rugby players would be well able which some think they wouldn't be able to. That's how it helps my point.

Of course rugby would do the same but I don't go trolling on this forum thinking that my sport is somehow superior to another.

carlowboy again they did not poach anyone I have posted the meaning of the word for you.

poach 2
v. poached, poach·ing, poach·es

v. intr.

1. To trespass on another's property in order to take fish or game.
2. To take fish or game in a forbidden area.
3. To become muddy or broken up from being trampled. Used of land.
4. To sink into soft earth when walking.
5.
1. To take or appropriate something unfairly or illegally.
2. Sports To play a ball out of turn or in another's territory, as in doubles tennis.


v. tr.

1. To trespass on (another's property) for fishing or hunting.
2. To take (fish or game) illegally.
3. To make (land) muddy or broken up by trampling.
4.
1. To take or appropriate unfairly or illegally.
2. Sports To play (a ball) out of turn or in another's territory.

As per definition the NFL have not gone into anyones territroy to take players as these players are not owned by anyone. And generally it is College teams who recruit these players give them education and teach them football so again I say not poached. They are not doing anything illegal. Obviouly the offer of College and Football is enough to convince these guys to cross over sports.

As for this ridiculous argument as to which sport is better who cares each to their own. This is one of those arguments that will die with man.

Pherekydes

carlowboy wrote:

They are poached from their rugby background and the reason I brought it up is because Slow coach and some others in this thread seem to think that only people brought up around American football are good enough to make it.

I'm afraid you'll have to quote me directly if you're going to include my name.

The guys from the south seas are not stepping straight from the beach into an NFL roster. Many have gone through HS and college in the States, learning their trade.

The fastest time I've seen quoted for Tonderai Chavanga is 10.29, but even then he doesn't appear on the IAAF lists, and they go down to 10.4 or so. He isn't even as fast as Paul Hession, and is a long way from sub 10.

Regarding the NFL, there have been many examples of world class sprinters, most famous of whom is Bob Hayes, the only man to have won an Olympic Gold and a Superbowl ring. Zone defence was invented to combat his speed, as man-to-man coverage was out of the question. Game changing speed indeed.

carlowboy

Slow coach wrote:

Rugby players train like rugby players, and so have a rugby player's endurance.

But many NFL players train like track athletes.

The requirements of the game are one thing. The realities are something completely different.

Your use of bold there implies something!


You get that from Wiki? I remember him running under 10 at one stage or another, I'll try dig up a link if I can in the next day or so.

carlowboy

Slow coach wrote:

The guys from the south seas are not stepping straight from the beach into an NFL roster. Many have gone through HS and college in the States, learning their trade.

.

I bet many do! But going into such an "evolved" sport as you call it would mean that all of them would have to, wouldn't they?


I'm not trying to suggest Rugby players are superior to American Football players but I'm just responding to posters like yourself who are so blinkered.


Oh and I know NZ poach players, I'm not here to defend them!

Pherekydes

carlowboy wrote:

Your use of bold there implies something!


You get that from Wiki? I remember him running under 10 at one stage or another, I'll try dig up a link if I can in the next day or so.

Ah yes. It must be true then. Not from Wiki. I write all my own stuff.

If his 10.29 is legit, then he's probably the fastest rugby player, but he's not in the same league as lots of US footballers.

That shouldn't be a surprise, as many of the world's top sprinters hail from the USA, while very few hail from southern Africa.

carlowboy

I'm not knocking the fact that USA produce the best sprinters. I could bring up the drug issue that pollutes the sport but I won't. Being so fast hasn't really gotten him anywhere as he can't get a place on his professional team which was my original point.


Also, are you admitting that you don't nescessarily have to grow up around American Football to make it?