[quote]IronHell wrote:
WMD wrote:
Yes I’ve played rugby, even had a scrum collapse on me. Big deal. And whatever women’s football you’ve watched, doesn’t sound like the real deal to me, since I’ve seen tackles that nearly took someone’s head off. And I’ve seen my fair share of people taken off to the hospital, unconcious from having taken a real pop.
Don’t tell me you put on some Pop Warner league pads and tell me you know how much pro level gear weighs. Since you don’t seem to know this, I’ll let you in on a little secret: different positions wear different pads, i.e. the quarterbacks pads and helmet are different from those worn by, say, the nose tackle.
Depending on what league we’re talking about, a football player may have to play both sides of the ball and special teams as well.
Like I said, all rugby smack talkers, feel free to put on the pads and play the game. Haven’t seen it happen yet. Just a bunch of BS.
Pipe’s back in your hand, bro.
WMD
A few things, yes I’ve played football, and no, it wasn’t a big deal, but now that’s just my opinion vs. yours, so no point in going down that path.
As for the tackles I was referring to, I am talking about female RUGBY players, the ones I’ve seen don’t seem to be able to tackle so what I was not so subtly hinting at is that the female rugby-turned football players whining about football may not be the “real deal” .
As for equipment, shrugs no I am not a professional football player, but it sounds like you are, so I’ll just take your word for it. But 40 lbs of equipment sounds like a lot of padding.
You mentioned some players play both sides, please enlighten me, what positions do you have in mind? Do you play both d, o, and special teams?
And you didn’t address the numerous number of huddles (read: rest) you have…
As for injuries, I didn’t factor that into the equation because there can be so many variables. For example, if one was out of shape, one was more prone to getting hurt, if one doesn’t know how to take a hit and/or fall, one is more prone to getting hurt etc. If injuries are what govern what is the most “aggressive” sport, then by all means MWA should win it. Hell, even hockey would beat out rugby and football (I would argue).
Right back at ya 
[/quote]
Heh, you got me man. It’s all pretty subjective. I don’t play football anymore mainly because I want to be able to walk in my old age. And then there’s that whole grad school thing which seems to eat up alot of my time. I just enjoy a good debate from time to time, but I admit rugby is a tough sport. I’m just not completely convinced it’s objectively any tougher than American football. Hell, if we use brawls as the defining aspect of aggro sport, we’d have to include ML baseball in the mix. Hockey is pretty nuts.
Actually, the roughest “sport” I’ve ever seen is two chicks fighting over a man. Now that is some nasty business: noses bitten off, weaves pulled out, nail files used in truly unintended ways. Yecch.
Anyway, peace to you man. Except on the pitch.
WMD
