There are 134 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

11 Minutes of Action in Typical NFL Game

Originally posted by waiting4number6:
Originally posted by BigRon:
Originally posted by jaghetersofie:
Originally posted by blunt_probe:
And yet so much more is accomplished than in that "other football" sport.

Lol depends how you look at it. You could also say that in the "other football" almost each player on the team completes 20-25 passes a game, and there's 90 minutes of action.

more like 90 minutes of wind sprints.

Um no real men play football, and real men play futbol. Both are great sports, it's just there are so many Leagues over in Europe and others in South America, vs. all the great players are in one League in the NFL. And of course the US sucks at soccer, well the men anyway.

yup, I bet Ron has never sat down and watched a Barcelona vs Madrid match. Futbol requires more thinking than American soccer let's off. Just watch the best of the best play a match.
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Alright, well, then take'em out of their respective sports.

How many NFL players have been olympians, successful in other sports, and even held world records compared to Rugby players? (I'd love it if someone would do the research on this, but I can think of several off the top of my head.)

I'm pretty sure it isn't even close.

Why? Because the NFL takes the strongest, fastest, most explosive, and most "elite" athletes at specific abilities and puts'em on a team together.

Rugby players may need more "overall athleticism" than many NFL players, but really, being good at everything usually means you're not great at anything.

Running a marathon isn't going to help a world-class weight lifter, sumo wrestler, or an NFL lineman. A great 40 time won't usually help a pitcher, a javelin thrower, or an NFL quarterback. Michael Phelps would probably suck at Rugby, but he sure as hell is an elite athlete.

That's what's so great about football. You field a team of elite, world-class athletes who cover the whole spectrum of athletic abilities and then work together to put all those varying, but elite, abilities into a cohesive unit.

That play 5mins a game

Who cares?

By that logic you could argue that Rugby players aren't elite athletes because they don't go as long as a marathon runner or the tour'de'france cyclists. Endurance is just one measurable of athleticism, not the only one. Is the person who holds the world-record for longest hoola-hooping session more of an elite athlete than all rugby, football, soccer, or basketball players?

The vast majority, in fact almost all, of the people who are commonly discussed as elite athletes do not got for a full hour in their respective fields. Running, jumping, swimming, skiing, skating, fighting...none of these things go for as long as a rugby match or soccer game. In fact, almost none of them go as long for as a football player in a football game does. How does that translate to them not being elite athletes?

By the way, you claim it takes the strongest, fastest, etc etc etc. That is a crock, pure drivel. These guys aren't world class weightlifters, these guys aren't world class sprinters, high jumpers, long jumpers. Again trying to over hype these players as elite athletes.

To rephrase your statement, an NFL team is a collect of great specialised athletes forming together as a team

Off the top of my head I know that Bob Hayes and Floyd Little set world-records sprinting. Michael Bennet ran a 4.13 40 and was a competitive sprinter (dunno about records). The 40 isn't an internationally recognized #, but unofficially Darrell Greene, another football player, holds the record with a 4.08 I think. Bo Jackson was a competitive sprinter and pro-baseball player in addition to football. I'm sure there are many, many other nfl players who have been world-class competitive sprinters.

I don't feel like doing all the research for you, so I'm not going to look up weight-lifting history etc, but I know players that play(ed) in the NFL have competed in world's strongest man competitions, and I know of at least 3 recent/current players that can squat over 800 lbs. NFL lineman regularly bench 225 lbs over 30 times and some even break 40. Those are all elite athletic abilities.

How much can the strongest rugby player bench or squat? How many rugby players have set world records?

The NFL has more elite athletic ability than any organized sports league in the world and the facts prove it.
[ Edited by mug0mug on Feb 7, 2010 at 6:42 PM ]
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Alright, well, then take'em out of their respective sports.

How many NFL players have been olympians, successful in other sports, and even held world records compared to Rugby players? (I'd love it if someone would do the research on this, but I can think of several off the top of my head.)

I'm pretty sure it isn't even close.

Why? Because the NFL takes the strongest, fastest, most explosive, and most "elite" athletes at specific abilities and puts'em on a team together.

Rugby players may need more "overall athleticism" than many NFL players, but really, being good at everything usually means you're not great at anything.

Running a marathon isn't going to help a world-class weight lifter, sumo wrestler, or an NFL lineman. A great 40 time won't usually help a pitcher, a javelin thrower, or an NFL quarterback. Michael Phelps would probably suck at Rugby, but he sure as hell is an elite athlete.

That's what's so great about football. You field a team of elite, world-class athletes who cover the whole spectrum of athletic abilities and then work together to put all those varying, but elite, abilities into a cohesive unit.

That play 5mins a game

Who cares?

By that logic you could argue that Rugby players aren't elite athletes because they don't go as long as a marathon runner or the tour'de'france cyclists. Endurance is just one measurable of athleticism, not the only one. Is the person who holds the world-record for longest hoola-hooping session more of an elite athlete than all rugby, football, soccer, or basketball players?

The vast majority, in fact almost all, of the people who are commonly discussed as elite athletes do not got for a full hour in their respective fields. Running, jumping, swimming, skiing, skating, fighting...none of these things go for as long as a rugby match or soccer game. In fact, almost none of them go as long for as a football player in a football game does. How does that translate to them not being elite athletes?

By the way, you claim it takes the strongest, fastest, etc etc etc. That is a crock, pure drivel. These guys aren't world class weightlifters, these guys aren't world class sprinters, high jumpers, long jumpers. Again trying to over hype these players as elite athletes.

To rephrase your statement, an NFL team is a collect of great specialised athletes forming together as a team

Off the top of my head I know that Bob Hayes and Floyd Little set world-records sprinting. Michael Bennet ran a 4.13 40 and was a competitive sprinter (dunno about records). The 40 isn't an internationally recognized #, but unofficially Darrell Greene, another football player, holds the record with a 4.08 I think. Bo Jackson was a competitive sprinter and pro-baseball player in addition to football. I'm sure there are many, many other nfl players who have been world-class competitive sprinters.

I don't feel like doing all the research for you, so I'm not going to look up weight-lifting history etc, but I know players that play(ed) in the NFL have competed in world's strongest man competitions, and I know of at least 3 recent/current players that can squat over 800 lbs. NFL lineman regularly bench 225 lbs over 30 times and some even break 40. Those are all elite athletic abilities.

How much can the strongest rugby player bench or squat? How many rugby players have set world records?

The NFL has more elite athletic ability than any organized sports league in the world and the facts prove it.

As i stated before, Rugby doesn't either record those measurable or post them for the public, there is no overrated combine in Rugby. The 40 is solely American Football.

As i stated before Rugby players don't compete in other sports because their dedication to rugby is superior to the NFL purely based on both training and playing majority of the year. NFL players play 16 weeks with 7 weeks including PO and preseason. They may train for it, but game play > training any athlete will agree on that.
  • DVDA
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,341
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Alright, well, then take'em out of their respective sports.

How many NFL players have been olympians, successful in other sports, and even held world records compared to Rugby players? (I'd love it if someone would do the research on this, but I can think of several off the top of my head.)

I'm pretty sure it isn't even close.

Why? Because the NFL takes the strongest, fastest, most explosive, and most "elite" athletes at specific abilities and puts'em on a team together.

Rugby players may need more "overall athleticism" than many NFL players, but really, being good at everything usually means you're not great at anything.

Running a marathon isn't going to help a world-class weight lifter, sumo wrestler, or an NFL lineman. A great 40 time won't usually help a pitcher, a javelin thrower, or an NFL quarterback. Michael Phelps would probably suck at Rugby, but he sure as hell is an elite athlete.

That's what's so great about football. You field a team of elite, world-class athletes who cover the whole spectrum of athletic abilities and then work together to put all those varying, but elite, abilities into a cohesive unit.

That play 5mins a game

Who cares?

By that logic you could argue that Rugby players aren't elite athletes because they don't go as long as a marathon runner or the tour'de'france cyclists. Endurance is just one measurable of athleticism, not the only one. Is the person who holds the world-record for longest hoola-hooping session more of an elite athlete than all rugby, football, soccer, or basketball players?

The vast majority, in fact almost all, of the people who are commonly discussed as elite athletes do not got for a full hour in their respective fields. Running, jumping, swimming, skiing, skating, fighting...none of these things go for as long as a rugby match or soccer game. In fact, almost none of them go as long for as a football player in a football game does. How does that translate to them not being elite athletes?

By the way, you claim it takes the strongest, fastest, etc etc etc. That is a crock, pure drivel. These guys aren't world class weightlifters, these guys aren't world class sprinters, high jumpers, long jumpers. Again trying to over hype these players as elite athletes.

To rephrase your statement, an NFL team is a collect of great specialised athletes forming together as a team

Off the top of my head I know that Bob Hayes and Floyd Little set world-records sprinting. Michael Bennet ran a 4.13 40 and was a competitive sprinter (dunno about records). The 40 isn't an internationally recognized #, but unofficially Darrell Greene, another football player, holds the record with a 4.08 I think. Bo Jackson was a competitive sprinter and pro-baseball player in addition to football. I'm sure there are many, many other nfl players who have been world-class competitive sprinters.

I don't feel like doing all the research for you, so I'm not going to look up weight-lifting history etc, but I know players that play(ed) in the NFL have competed in world's strongest man competitions, and I know of at least 3 recent/current players that can squat over 800 lbs. NFL lineman regularly bench 225 lbs over 30 times and some even break 40. Those are all elite athletic abilities.

How much can the strongest rugby player bench or squat? How many rugby players have set world records?

The NFL has more elite athletic ability than any organized sports league in the world and the facts prove it.

As i stated before, Rugby doesn't either record those measurable or post them for the public, there is no overrated combine in Rugby. The 40 is solely American Football.

As i stated before Rugby players don't compete in other sports because their dedication to rugby is superior to the NFL purely based on both training and playing majority of the year. NFL players play 16 weeks with 7 weeks including PO and preseason. They may train for it, but game play > training any athlete will agree on that.

I bet Jerry Rice would argue that training is pretty important...
Originally posted by 23zack80:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Alright, well, then take'em out of their respective sports.

How many NFL players have been olympians, successful in other sports, and even held world records compared to Rugby players? (I'd love it if someone would do the research on this, but I can think of several off the top of my head.)

I'm pretty sure it isn't even close.

Why? Because the NFL takes the strongest, fastest, most explosive, and most "elite" athletes at specific abilities and puts'em on a team together.

Rugby players may need more "overall athleticism" than many NFL players, but really, being good at everything usually means you're not great at anything.

Running a marathon isn't going to help a world-class weight lifter, sumo wrestler, or an NFL lineman. A great 40 time won't usually help a pitcher, a javelin thrower, or an NFL quarterback. Michael Phelps would probably suck at Rugby, but he sure as hell is an elite athlete.

That's what's so great about football. You field a team of elite, world-class athletes who cover the whole spectrum of athletic abilities and then work together to put all those varying, but elite, abilities into a cohesive unit.

That play 5mins a game

Who cares?

By that logic you could argue that Rugby players aren't elite athletes because they don't go as long as a marathon runner or the tour'de'france cyclists. Endurance is just one measurable of athleticism, not the only one. Is the person who holds the world-record for longest hoola-hooping session more of an elite athlete than all rugby, football, soccer, or basketball players?

The vast majority, in fact almost all, of the people who are commonly discussed as elite athletes do not got for a full hour in their respective fields. Running, jumping, swimming, skiing, skating, fighting...none of these things go for as long as a rugby match or soccer game. In fact, almost none of them go as long for as a football player in a football game does. How does that translate to them not being elite athletes?

By the way, you claim it takes the strongest, fastest, etc etc etc. That is a crock, pure drivel. These guys aren't world class weightlifters, these guys aren't world class sprinters, high jumpers, long jumpers. Again trying to over hype these players as elite athletes.

To rephrase your statement, an NFL team is a collect of great specialised athletes forming together as a team

Off the top of my head I know that Bob Hayes and Floyd Little set world-records sprinting. Michael Bennet ran a 4.13 40 and was a competitive sprinter (dunno about records). The 40 isn't an internationally recognized #, but unofficially Darrell Greene, another football player, holds the record with a 4.08 I think. Bo Jackson was a competitive sprinter and pro-baseball player in addition to football. I'm sure there are many, many other nfl players who have been world-class competitive sprinters.

I don't feel like doing all the research for you, so I'm not going to look up weight-lifting history etc, but I know players that play(ed) in the NFL have competed in world's strongest man competitions, and I know of at least 3 recent/current players that can squat over 800 lbs. NFL lineman regularly bench 225 lbs over 30 times and some even break 40. Those are all elite athletic abilities.

How much can the strongest rugby player bench or squat? How many rugby players have set world records?

The NFL has more elite athletic ability than any organized sports league in the world and the facts prove it.

As i stated before, Rugby doesn't either record those measurable or post them for the public, there is no overrated combine in Rugby. The 40 is solely American Football.

As i stated before Rugby players don't compete in other sports because their dedication to rugby is superior to the NFL purely based on both training and playing majority of the year. NFL players play 16 weeks with 7 weeks including PO and preseason. They may train for it, but game play > training any athlete will agree on that.

I bet Jerry Rice would argue that training is pretty important...

No. Playing football is easy. Any 53 of us can put on pads, train, and play in the NFL. They Rugby fan has proven that by not addressing or apparently paying attention to any of the good points people have made in regards to NFL players being elite athletes and instead opting to regurgitate his own talking points as to why NFL players are not elite.
Isn't rugby the "sport" where a bunch of dudes hug each other for an uncomfortable amount of time until the ball pops out?

Yeah, American Football is better.
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
Originally posted by 23zack80:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Alright, well, then take'em out of their respective sports.

How many NFL players have been olympians, successful in other sports, and even held world records compared to Rugby players? (I'd love it if someone would do the research on this, but I can think of several off the top of my head.)

I'm pretty sure it isn't even close.

Why? Because the NFL takes the strongest, fastest, most explosive, and most "elite" athletes at specific abilities and puts'em on a team together.

Rugby players may need more "overall athleticism" than many NFL players, but really, being good at everything usually means you're not great at anything.

Running a marathon isn't going to help a world-class weight lifter, sumo wrestler, or an NFL lineman. A great 40 time won't usually help a pitcher, a javelin thrower, or an NFL quarterback. Michael Phelps would probably suck at Rugby, but he sure as hell is an elite athlete.

That's what's so great about football. You field a team of elite, world-class athletes who cover the whole spectrum of athletic abilities and then work together to put all those varying, but elite, abilities into a cohesive unit.

That play 5mins a game

Who cares?

By that logic you could argue that Rugby players aren't elite athletes because they don't go as long as a marathon runner or the tour'de'france cyclists. Endurance is just one measurable of athleticism, not the only one. Is the person who holds the world-record for longest hoola-hooping session more of an elite athlete than all rugby, football, soccer, or basketball players?

The vast majority, in fact almost all, of the people who are commonly discussed as elite athletes do not got for a full hour in their respective fields. Running, jumping, swimming, skiing, skating, fighting...none of these things go for as long as a rugby match or soccer game. In fact, almost none of them go as long for as a football player in a football game does. How does that translate to them not being elite athletes?

By the way, you claim it takes the strongest, fastest, etc etc etc. That is a crock, pure drivel. These guys aren't world class weightlifters, these guys aren't world class sprinters, high jumpers, long jumpers. Again trying to over hype these players as elite athletes.

To rephrase your statement, an NFL team is a collect of great specialised athletes forming together as a team

Off the top of my head I know that Bob Hayes and Floyd Little set world-records sprinting. Michael Bennet ran a 4.13 40 and was a competitive sprinter (dunno about records). The 40 isn't an internationally recognized #, but unofficially Darrell Greene, another football player, holds the record with a 4.08 I think. Bo Jackson was a competitive sprinter and pro-baseball player in addition to football. I'm sure there are many, many other nfl players who have been world-class competitive sprinters.

I don't feel like doing all the research for you, so I'm not going to look up weight-lifting history etc, but I know players that play(ed) in the NFL have competed in world's strongest man competitions, and I know of at least 3 recent/current players that can squat over 800 lbs. NFL lineman regularly bench 225 lbs over 30 times and some even break 40. Those are all elite athletic abilities.

How much can the strongest rugby player bench or squat? How many rugby players have set world records?

The NFL has more elite athletic ability than any organized sports league in the world and the facts prove it.

As i stated before, Rugby doesn't either record those measurable or post them for the public, there is no overrated combine in Rugby. The 40 is solely American Football.

As i stated before Rugby players don't compete in other sports because their dedication to rugby is superior to the NFL purely based on both training and playing majority of the year. NFL players play 16 weeks with 7 weeks including PO and preseason. They may train for it, but game play > training any athlete will agree on that.

I bet Jerry Rice would argue that training is pretty important...

No. Playing football is easy. Any 53 of us can put on pads, train, and play in the NFL. They Rugby fan has proven that by not addressing or apparently paying attention to any of the good points people have made in regards to NFL players being elite athletes and instead opting to regurgitate his own talking points as to why NFL players are not elite.

So playing 16+ weeks, then training the rst of the year is far better than training AND playing majority of the year? Umm Ok.

Which good points are these I'm not addressing?
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
Originally posted by 23zack80:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by mug0mug:
Alright, well, then take'em out of their respective sports.

How many NFL players have been olympians, successful in other sports, and even held world records compared to Rugby players? (I'd love it if someone would do the research on this, but I can think of several off the top of my head.)

I'm pretty sure it isn't even close.

Why? Because the NFL takes the strongest, fastest, most explosive, and most "elite" athletes at specific abilities and puts'em on a team together.

Rugby players may need more "overall athleticism" than many NFL players, but really, being good at everything usually means you're not great at anything.

Running a marathon isn't going to help a world-class weight lifter, sumo wrestler, or an NFL lineman. A great 40 time won't usually help a pitcher, a javelin thrower, or an NFL quarterback. Michael Phelps would probably suck at Rugby, but he sure as hell is an elite athlete.

That's what's so great about football. You field a team of elite, world-class athletes who cover the whole spectrum of athletic abilities and then work together to put all those varying, but elite, abilities into a cohesive unit.

That play 5mins a game

Who cares?

By that logic you could argue that Rugby players aren't elite athletes because they don't go as long as a marathon runner or the tour'de'france cyclists. Endurance is just one measurable of athleticism, not the only one. Is the person who holds the world-record for longest hoola-hooping session more of an elite athlete than all rugby, football, soccer, or basketball players?

The vast majority, in fact almost all, of the people who are commonly discussed as elite athletes do not got for a full hour in their respective fields. Running, jumping, swimming, skiing, skating, fighting...none of these things go for as long as a rugby match or soccer game. In fact, almost none of them go as long for as a football player in a football game does. How does that translate to them not being elite athletes?

By the way, you claim it takes the strongest, fastest, etc etc etc. That is a crock, pure drivel. These guys aren't world class weightlifters, these guys aren't world class sprinters, high jumpers, long jumpers. Again trying to over hype these players as elite athletes.

To rephrase your statement, an NFL team is a collect of great specialised athletes forming together as a team

Off the top of my head I know that Bob Hayes and Floyd Little set world-records sprinting. Michael Bennet ran a 4.13 40 and was a competitive sprinter (dunno about records). The 40 isn't an internationally recognized #, but unofficially Darrell Greene, another football player, holds the record with a 4.08 I think. Bo Jackson was a competitive sprinter and pro-baseball player in addition to football. I'm sure there are many, many other nfl players who have been world-class competitive sprinters.

I don't feel like doing all the research for you, so I'm not going to look up weight-lifting history etc, but I know players that play(ed) in the NFL have competed in world's strongest man competitions, and I know of at least 3 recent/current players that can squat over 800 lbs. NFL lineman regularly bench 225 lbs over 30 times and some even break 40. Those are all elite athletic abilities.

How much can the strongest rugby player bench or squat? How many rugby players have set world records?

The NFL has more elite athletic ability than any organized sports league in the world and the facts prove it.

As i stated before, Rugby doesn't either record those measurable or post them for the public, there is no overrated combine in Rugby. The 40 is solely American Football.

As i stated before Rugby players don't compete in other sports because their dedication to rugby is superior to the NFL purely based on both training and playing majority of the year. NFL players play 16 weeks with 7 weeks including PO and preseason. They may train for it, but game play > training any athlete will agree on that.

I bet Jerry Rice would argue that training is pretty important...

No. Playing football is easy. Any 53 of us can put on pads, train, and play in the NFL. They Rugby fan has proven that by not addressing or apparently paying attention to any of the good points people have made in regards to NFL players being elite athletes and instead opting to regurgitate his own talking points as to why NFL players are not elite.

So playing 16+ weeks, then training the rst of the year is far better than training AND playing majority of the year? Umm Ok.

Which good points are these I'm not addressing?

I didn't say that at all. I'm not saying NFL players are more elite than Rugby. Both require elite athletes.

You have ignored the overall context of statements people have made regarding the type of speed skill position players possess and the type of strength the lineman must have. Strength is a measurable for athleticism as well as the other attributes but you've ignored that fact and decided to focus on the lineman's guts.

With the skill position players you've focused on the fact that they are not all as fast as Chris Johnson or jump as high as Fitzgerald. Well of course everyone is not as fast as the fastest player. I'm sure not every Rugby player has as much endurance as the player with the most, but they still have elite levels of stamina. The skill players that are not recognized as having speed, such as Brandon Marshall, still possess elite speed, he's just not as fast as the fastest players.
Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:
Isn't rugby the "sport" where a bunch of dudes hug each other for an uncomfortable amount of time until the ball pops out?

Yeah, American Football is better.

Not really the best argument
Originally posted by Kalen49ers:
Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:
Isn't rugby the "sport" where a bunch of dudes hug each other for an uncomfortable amount of time until the ball pops out?

Yeah, American Football is better.

Not really the best argument

I'll decide what the best argument is or isn't. But since you're being a girl about it...

The two sports aren't comparable because the players train to achieve different objectives. Rugby players train to last so stamina is very important. American Football players play only a limited amount of time but on each given play they give it their all, an all out sprint off the line. There's no jogging or taking it easy during a Football play. And while Rugby players may have more endurance, there's no arguing that Football players are much stronger and play with much more speed. There's a reason they wear all that padding and it has nothing to do with preventing pain. It's to prevent death. You can't expect them to make the hits they make every game non-stop the way Rugby players do.

Sports Science did a show on the impact of a hit off of a Rugby player and from a Football player.


By the way, Dhani Jones of the Bengals played with Blackheath a couple of years back.

"I think it would be harder for a rugby player to come and play American football. Rugby is a game of power and leverage where as football is a game of impact and speed."

His words.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7226539.stm

I think it's safe to say that he wouldn't have been able to make the transition if he wasn't such a great athlete.
Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:
Originally posted by Kalen49ers:
Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:
Isn't rugby the "sport" where a bunch of dudes hug each other for an uncomfortable amount of time until the ball pops out?

Yeah, American Football is better.

Not really the best argument

I'll decide what the best argument is or isn't. But since you're being a girl about it...

The two sports aren't comparable because the players train to achieve different objectives. Rugby players train to last so stamina is very important. American Football players play only a limited amount of time but on each given play they give it their all, an all out sprint off the line. There's no jogging or taking it easy during a Football play. And while Rugby players may have more endurance, there's no arguing that Football players are much stronger and play with much more speed. There's a reason they wear all that padding and it has nothing to do with preventing pain. It's to prevent death. You can't expect them to make the hits they make every game non-stop the way Rugby players do.

Sports Science did a show on the impact of a hit off of a Rugby player and from a Football player.

By the way, Dhani Jones of the Bengals played with Blackheath a couple of years back.

"I think it would be harder for a rugby player to come and play American football. Rugby is a game of power and leverage where as football is a game of impact and speed."

His words.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7226539.stm

I think it's safe to say that he wouldn't have been able to make the transition if he wasn't such a great athlete.

Ok, thread over please.
Originally posted by Godsleftsock:
Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:
Originally posted by Kalen49ers:
Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:
Isn't rugby the "sport" where a bunch of dudes hug each other for an uncomfortable amount of time until the ball pops out?

Yeah, American Football is better.

Not really the best argument

I'll decide what the best argument is or isn't. But since you're being a girl about it...

The two sports aren't comparable because the players train to achieve different objectives. Rugby players train to last so stamina is very important. American Football players play only a limited amount of time but on each given play they give it their all, an all out sprint off the line. There's no jogging or taking it easy during a Football play. And while Rugby players may have more endurance, there's no arguing that Football players are much stronger and play with much more speed. There's a reason they wear all that padding and it has nothing to do with preventing pain. It's to prevent death. You can't expect them to make the hits they make every game non-stop the way Rugby players do.

Sports Science did a show on the impact of a hit off of a Rugby player and from a Football player.

By the way, Dhani Jones of the Bengals played with Blackheath a couple of years back.

"I think it would be harder for a rugby player to come and play American football. Rugby is a game of power and leverage where as football is a game of impact and speed."

His words.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7226539.stm

I think it's safe to say that he wouldn't have been able to make the transition if he wasn't such a great athlete.

Ok, thread over please.

Tell Aussie.
Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:
Originally posted by Kalen49ers:
Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:
Isn't rugby the "sport" where a bunch of dudes hug each other for an uncomfortable amount of time until the ball pops out?

Yeah, American Football is better.

Not really the best argument

I'll decide what the best argument is or isn't. But since you're being a girl about it...

The two sports aren't comparable because the players train to achieve different objectives. Rugby players train to last so stamina is very important. American Football players play only a limited amount of time but on each given play they give it their all, an all out sprint off the line. There's no jogging or taking it easy during a Football play. And while Rugby players may have more endurance, there's no arguing that Football players are much stronger and play with much more speed. There's a reason they wear all that padding and it has nothing to do with preventing pain. It's to prevent death. You can't expect them to make the hits they make every game non-stop the way Rugby players do.

Sports Science did a show on the impact of a hit off of a Rugby player and from a Football player.

By the way, Dhani Jones of the Bengals played with Blackheath a couple of years back.

"I think it would be harder for a rugby player to come and play American football. Rugby is a game of power and leverage where as football is a game of impact and speed."

His words.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7226539.stm

I think it's safe to say that he wouldn't have been able to make the transition if he wasn't such a great athlete.

Pretty interesting video. Both are crazy impacts.

The only issue I have is that not only does it look like the rugby players are heavier than Jammer (maybe not, but the weight will affect the force), but more importantly, during the football collision, the dummy was stationary, while in the rugby one they were coming toward each other. The opposing momentum makes a significant difference in the force of the impact.
oops
[ Edited by mug0mug on Feb 8, 2010 at 7:26 PM ]
Makes you wonder why these guys are so winded after a game. I mean, 11 minutes split between defense and offense over roughly 3 hours.