Rugby for wimps in armour....

carlowboy

Haven't found that elusive link but 10.4 seconds on grass (probably in socks), handtimed during school time is extremely impressive!

http://sport.iafrica.com/news/449105.htm
What is impressive among American Footballers btw? All I can't find are times for 40 yards which have no real comparison in rugby as the US is the only country in the world that still uses yards. I'll only take metres as proof as 100 yards cannot be compared to 100 metres.


The 10.29 time for Chavanga is from blocks whereas most American Footballers use running starts.

tallaghtoutlaws

carlowboy wrote:

The 10.29 time for Chavanga is from blocks whereas most American Footballers use running starts.

Eh no they don't. In any combine or physical test they start from blocks also or sprinter stances. Where do you get your info from?

Look both of you are arguing a ridiculous argument. Jim could be faster than Paul but Paul is faster than Peter yet Peter is stronger than Jim. These arguments are revolving doors and are never going to be won and just mere opinions.

The only way this will be ever proven is by this: (This Idea is copyrighted )

2 Game test: American Footballs best Vs. Rugby's Best

Game 1 Fully Kitted American Football Match

Game 2 A full game of Rugby.

Game 3 (if tied) Olympic Events.

Only then will the true answer be revealed.

dc69

por wrote:

Rugby people will always go on about how their sport is tougher than American Football, I agree with the quote in IncredibleBulk's post above on that one.

And as for who is the better athlete, I agree with Slow coach, put the cream of the NFL up against the cream of world rugby and I'll put my money on the NFL.
Is there a rugby player to compare with Michael Vick ?

As for the game being too slow, well that's the way it's played so it's something to get used of and people should stop expecting it to be continuous action. When the play end listen to what the commentators have to say and the way they describe the plays, very enlightening.

Best of luck to the American Football forum.

Joe Rokocoko would eat michael vik alive,would also out run him,anyway vick is a scumbag who should be skinned alive

tallaghtoutlaws

dc69 wrote:

Joe Rokocoko would eat michael vik alive,would also out run him,anyway vick is a scumbag who should be skinned alive

Very constructive Rokococko does the 100m in 10.4 Vick also has done the 100m in 10.4 some say 10.3.

As for a scumbag yes he allowed dog fighting on his property was he personally involved we will never know the truth. Altough his cousin and his clown mates are apparently giving him up.

Pherekydes

carlowboy wrote:

Haven't found that elusive link but 10.4 seconds on grass (probably in socks), handtimed during school time is extremely impressive!

http://sport.iafrica.com/news/449105.htm
What is impressive among American Footballers btw? All I can't find are times for 40 yards which have no real comparison in rugby as the US is the only country in the world that still uses yards. I'll only take metres as proof as 100 yards cannot be compared to 100 metres.


The 10.29 time for Chavanga is from blocks whereas most American Footballers use running starts.

It says "he apparently ran the 100 metres on grass at school in 10.4 seconds".

Nothing about socks, and "apparently" doesn't really carry much weight in track circles. So now it's apparently 10.4 hand timed, while the NFL has multiple guys running 10.0x FAT.

Regarding the 40, that is just a football test, administered by football coaches. It carries little weight in track circles.

But most of these guys run track when they're in college, and their names can be found on official IAAF ranking lists.

Trindon Holliday was 2nd in the 100m at the USA championships. His best time is a legitimate 10.02. He earned selection for the World Championships, but instead, is back in college playing football. He ain't the first and he won't be the last.

The conclusion, I'm drawing, is that US football produces the fastest footballers, of any code, BY FAR.

Nigel Walker, who played on the wing for Wales and was an international High Hurdler, with a best flat PB of 10.47 (10.35w), is the legitimately fastest rugby player at the moment. If I see a better time for Tonderai I'll revise my opinion.

I'm not saying that Footballers are fitter, or that football is better than rugby, but it definitely produces faster guys.

Pherekydes

tallaghtoutlaws wrote:

The only way this will be ever proven is by this: (This Idea is copyrighted )

2 Game test: American Footballs best Vs. Rugby's Best

Game 1 Fully Kitted American Football Match

Game 2 A full game of Rugby.

Game 3 (if tied) Olympic Events.

Only then will the true answer be revealed.

That's a ridiculous argument! We had direct competition in the 80s in the Superstars. Rugby players could hold their own, but on the whole Footballers had the better results.

P.S. Skip 1 and 2 above (because we know the outcomes) and have the Olympics. That would be a bit one-sided.

carlowboy

Slow coach wrote:

I'm not saying that Footballers are fitter, or that football is better than rugby, but it definitely produces faster guys.

Eh, you clearly have done. Shifting the goalposts?

Very constructive Rokococko does the 100m in 10.4 Vick also has done the 100m in 10.4 some say 10.3.

No he hasn't, he did 100 yards in 10.4 which is a good bit different from 100m.

Pherekydes

carlowboy wrote:

No he hasn't, he did 100 yards in 10.4 which is a good bit different from 100m.

Vick's irrelevant to the discussion of football speed. There are plenty of others guys playing WR, RB or DB that are way faster than Vick.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

tallaghtoutlaws

carlowboy wrote:

Eh, you clearly have done. Shifting the goalposts?





No he hasn't, he did 100 yards in 10.4 which is a good bit different from 100m.

Eh no you clown Vick has done the sprint over meter and yards and done the 100m in 10.4 and again I say there is unofficial reports he done it in 10.3. I will find the link and link it.

jdivision

dc69 wrote:

Joe Rokocoko would eat michael vik alive,would also out run him,anyway vick is a scumbag who should be skinned alive

Vick is fairly fast but he's not the fastest football player afaik. He's v fast for a QB and The comparison should be more like an outhalf in rugby with Vick rather than Rokocoko

jdivision

carlowboy wrote:

No he hasn't, he did 100 yards in 10.4 which is a good bit different from 100m.

:rolleyes:
No wonder American sprinters dominate athletics, they only have to run 100 yards when everybody else has to run 100 metres.

The 40 yard dash is used by teams to measure a player's explosiveness. A quick start is key so the shorter space shows that. There's no point in timing an offensive lineman for example over 100 metres, he wouldn't run that far in a single play. The 40-yard therefore is a standard test that is relevant to all players actually playing the sport.

I can do it in 5.2 seconds and I'm about 18 stone and 6'4. To play offensive tackle in NFL I'd probably have to be three inches taller and five stone at least heavier and do it in the same time.

carlowboy

tallaghtoutlaws wrote:

Eh no you clown Vick has done the sprint over meter and yards and done the 100m in 10.4 and again I say there is unofficial reports he done it in 10.3. I will find the link and link it.

Prove to me that it was in metres and he ran out of blocks and I'll believe you. Deal? Considering they exaggerate enough in official reports, I'm not going to believe any unofficial reports.

Lionheart84

!: if there was the money that there is in the NFL compared to rugby there would be more rugby as for 2: that NFL are all padded bears Yes they are the training regimes the rugby players go through are the most advanced in the world let me think #


Paul o Connell running at you or a padded steroid NFL star ........... i'd go with the padded star any day instead ofthe truck !

carlowboy

Lionheart84 wrote:

Paul o Connell running at you or a padded steroid NFL star ........... i'd go with the padded star any day instead ofthe truck !

Oh but don't you know you get a ban for your third offence with drugs? The NFL are really serious about it. :rolleyes:

Pherekydes

carlowboy wrote:

Prove to me that it was in metres and he ran out of blocks and I'll believe you. Deal? Considering they exaggerate enough in official reports, I'm not going to believe any unofficial reports.

Will you do the same for your sub-10 rugby winger? :rolleyes:

carlowboy

I'll retract that, ok?

tallaghtoutlaws

carlowboy wrote:

I'll retract that, ok?

Look at the end of the day who gives a flying fook about Vick anyway he is only a criminal there are much faster players in the NFL anyway than Vick. Both Rugby players and American Football players are athletes you could spend 1000 years arguing both of in this thread and never both come up with valid arguments that would convince the other. As a person who who has played both sports they have their differences is one better than the other personal preference really. Whos players are better than whos? Who gives a flying fook.

tallaghtoutlaws

carlowboy wrote:

Oh but don't you know you get a ban for your third offence with drugs? The NFL are really serious about it. :rolleyes:

Oh and these comments haha hilarious both Rugby Union and League has seen its fair share of Drug users. They happened to clamp down on it earlier so what the NFL now has realised the mistake in letting these clowns play on.

carlowboy

Rugby Union has seen its fair share of Drug users? Really now? Only two I can think of are Caucau (cannibas) and Wendell Sailor (cocaine) neither for performance enhancing. Can you name a few please?????

As for League, its not my sport and I couldn't care less for it.

tallaghtoutlaws

There are 9,000 topics in google there and I could not be arsed going through the histroy of drugs in Rugby. Anyway only 2 recent players in the NFL were done for drug well found guilty of taking the rest were never proven and one was performance enhancing and the other was recreational so aare you arguing that it is ok for a professional athlete to take recreational drugs by saying "neither for performance enhancing"

Anyway Im bowing out of this aged old argument becuase I couldn't care less what each other thinks of the others sport. Again I say we could argue this for the next 1000 years and never get a result. Oh and I did find one interesting link below.


Romanian Union League Team <- 13 of them.

carlowboy

They're amateurs and were banned for 2 years. NFL, they'd only get a warning.

Saying there's 9,000 topics on google is relevant... well you're just wrong, its irrelevant.

Pherekydes

carlowboy wrote:

They're amateurs...

What's that supposed to mean?

Is it relevant? Isn't it the prospect of big money that causes people to take stuff in the first place?

tallaghtoutlaws

Slow coach wrote:

What's that supposed to mean?

Is it relevant? Isn't it the prospect of big money that causes people to take stuff in the first place?

Dude im giving up this argument with our friend carlowboy because as it seems if we say the sky is blue he will tell us its not. Seems like he came fishing for an argument. Thats why this particular thread goes nowhere. At the end of it let him believe what he wants to believe. if he thinks the sport is so bad maybe he should kit up in the IAFL and try it then tell us we are wrong.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

RuggieBear

i can think of sheehan and Tierney to name but two

dulpit

Ok, i've just quickly read through this whole topic, does anybody else think it really shouldn't even be discussed? As somebody else pointed out, they are 2 different sports, yes they both play on a rectangular field & use an oval ball but thats about it when it comes to similarities...

I know (i think anyway) that American Football was developed in the Ivy League schools as a variant of Rugby but in this day and age the 2 games are completely different...

I would class myself as a fan of both sports, and enjoy both (as a spectator) immensely...

It seems to me that the major difference between both is that in American Football it is a very specialised sport, every player specialises in his 1 position, and even some players would find it difficult from switching from say Left Guard to Right Guard or something....

Rugby on the other hand is far more general, i know that the players all have their positions and specialise in them, but all players still need to be able to handle the ball, play both offence and defence and play for a full 80 minutes on the go...
I've had many discussions with people where I've said that Rugby is possibly one of the most demanding sports, all players play all the time for the 80 minutes, whereas in soccer, for example, players in defence can get a bit of a rest when the ball goes up the pitch... In the NFL when the team is on Offence the whole defence can sit down...

So when you compare the 2 sports & the athletes who play them, it really is impossible... 1 sport has specialists who are brilliant at the 1 thing they do, whereas the other is more general...

I do believe that Rugby players are probably better all round athletes, based purely on the nature of the game they play.. On the other hand, NFL has players who are supreme at the one aspect of what they do, be it someone like Peyton Manning who can throw a ball anywhere on a field, to someone like LT or even Reggie Bush who can run all over the place...


I know this is a really rambling post, (i've been writing it at work, doing it bit by bit ) and for that i apologise... Basically what i'm saying is that you can only compare like with like, and rugby & american football are not alike...

jdivision

Several South Africans have been banned for drug use including Os Du Randt and Cobus Visagie. There was also a lot of questions regarding EPO surrounding their players a few years ago, although none were caught. One Ulster player was given a drugs ban and retired so wasn't named.

tallaghtoutlaws

dulpit wrote:

I know this is a really rambling post, (i've been writing it at work, doing it bit by bit ) and for that i apologise... Basically what i'm saying is that you can only compare like with like, and rugby & american football are not alike...

Very True Dulpit you and me are of the same opinion. Funny thing is though I say it in most my posts and still no one pays head to it

carlowboy

RuggieBear wrote:

i can think of sheehan and Tierney to name but two

Sheehan? Are you for real? He forgot to tick the box when asked about asthma medication and was cleared of wrongdoing. Same for Tierney.
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/11/20/shead.htm



I don't think the amateur game is relevant here because there is no comparison with American Football. Its either go pro or don't play so there's no point in bringing it up.