Rugby vs NFL

Off Topic
101

[quote]Seinix wrote:
Frankly I’m sick of this argument. And, being American, I have a certain resentment for Europeans on this topic.

Every time I see this argument, Rugby vs. Football, its ALWAYS European people starting it. Their typical arguments are:

1 - Football players wear pads. They’re pussies.

Before proper pads were in use, people in the NFL got KILLED. Therefore, if people in the NFL got killed, and nobody in Rugby gets killed, where do you think the harder hits are?

2 - Rugby players require much more endurance because football only have to play for 30 seconds at a time.

This is result of the nature of the game, not because athletes in football don’t have endurance or stamina. In rugby, the movements and play are more spontaneous…whereas in football, there are plays and tactics and plans of attack for every situation. There are 30 seconds of playing because in between, football players plan and anticipate, instead of running around like a bunch of mindless morons playing Rugby. Besides, try playing in pads that weigh you down, you’ll get tired faster.

Also, in response to the Rugby hits video posted:

Having ended my rant, you can see that I am completely bias for American football. However, I do admit that Rugby takes an incredible amount of athleticism and skill. I also admit that the argument is like comparing apples and oranges in that they are two different sports. However, I posted rant above for the following reasons:

  1. I love football
  2. I want to give the Euros some sort of rebuttal
  3. I want to be an asshole[/quote]

I agree with most of what you are saying (especially point 3! - only kidding, I’m yanking ya chain) I’m British tho - please don’t call us Euro’s, you lump us in with all those cheese eating surrender monkeys from the mainland when you do that!

They are two different sports, probably not comparable in any meaningful way.

But … I just can’t believe that anymore than a handful of players would be able to make hits like that after playing continously for 80minuts.

And therein lies the differences between the two games, one is based on explosive power and pre-planning while the other is based on endurance and intiative.

102

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
It’s plain and simple; if international rugby players could play in the NFL, they would. Not all of them, but you would be seeing significant amounts of them transitioning to the NFL. Why? More money.

I love volleyball. I play in college and aspire to play at some professional level some day. But you better be damn sure if the NBA called me up and offered me a contract I’d accept in a second because the amount of money, fame, importance of the sport, is so much bigger.

The best Rugby Super League seems to pack 15-18 thousand fans in for games. The best college football teams in America pack 100,000+ fans in the stadium.

The best Super League players seem to make about a million a year with the stars making more. The best players in the NFL can 10 million or more per year.

As far as the best athletes go, it is obviously dependent on your definition. In terms of size, strength and explosive power, no team sport can touch American football, simply by the nature of the game. Since the plays are short bursts followed by a recovery period, it allows the players to be bigger/stronger/faster without having the demands of running up and down the field all game with no breaks.

As far as watchability goes, that’s completely subjective. Obviously in America it is no contest but internationally Rugby is more popular.

There is no “better sport.” However, it’s safe to say that if Rugby players were able to make it in the NFL you’d be seeing a lot more of them lining up on Sundays.[/quote]

A lot also depends on cultural mores. Over here American Football (or plain football if your in the US) is very niche and somewhat looked down upon as “rugby for people who are scared to get hurt”. Now I’m not saying that this is remotely correct but a top rugby player in the UK / Europe / Australia / South Africa / New Zealand (plus a few other big rugby playing nations) defecting to play NFL would be likely viewed in the same way as a top NFL man dropping out to take up competative embroidery!

103

[quote]edn wrote:
A lot also depends on cultural mores. Over here American Football (or plain football if your in the US) is very niche and somewhat looked down upon as “rugby for people who are scared to get hurt”. Now I’m not saying that this is remotely correct but a top rugby player in the UK / Europe / Australia / South Africa / New Zealand (plus a few other big rugby playing nations) defecting to play NFL would be likely viewed in the same way as a top NFL man dropping out to take up competative embroidery!
[/quote]

I think a better comparison would be an NFL player defecting to play professional soccer. And you better be damn sure if a mediocre NFL player (who makes about 500k per year) got an offer from a European soccer club to make 10mil a year he’d throwing his passport in the bag!

104

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
edn wrote:
A lot also depends on cultural mores. Over here American Football (or plain football if your in the US) is very niche and somewhat looked down upon as “rugby for people who are scared to get hurt”. Now I’m not saying that this is remotely correct but a top rugby player in the UK / Europe / Australia / South Africa / New Zealand (plus a few other big rugby playing nations) defecting to play NFL would be likely viewed in the same way as a top NFL man dropping out to take up competative embroidery!

I think a better comparison would be an NFL player defecting to play professional soccer. And you better be damn sure if a mediocre NFL player (who makes about 500k per year) got an offer from a European soccer club to make 10mil a year he’d throwing his passport in the bag![/quote]

I’m afraid I can’t really comment as I’m on the wrong side of the pond to know the cultural mores surrounding soccer in the US. I was just trying to point out that there are more forces than simple finances in play here. If it was simple finances then all rugby players (in the UK at least!) would be playing soccer instead :slight_smile:

I think probably most of the disparaging of sports comes from simple ignorance of the requirements. I can happily look down on, for example, synchronised swimming as a pointless stupid pseudo-sport untill I sit down and work out that I probably don’t have the skills or physical abilities to do it. i may not like X sport but have to admit that whatever the sport people work hard to reach the top levels!

105

[quote]Wrel wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
thosebananas wrote:

also i think its strange that rugby was invented in 1820 and american football around 1860. yet nfl still basically remains in america but rugby is global…

Rugby is big primarily in countries that were at some point colonized by OTHER rugby-playing countries (see United Kingdom): New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, etc. It’s influence and popularity wasn’t spread by word-of-mouth, it was a by-product of imperialistic ambition.

You’re obviously well read, but lack the basic understanding that should come with it, have you ever seen the Maori’s in NZ play rugby? Or an inter tribal 7’s tournamant in Fiji? These people play rugby cos they love it, not because of some post-Colonial cultural hangover. Plus they have TV, they are aware of what American Football is … …

Take a look at some viewing/playing figures for cricket on the Indian sub-continent, they make American Football look like … … rugby?!?[/quote]

Dude, you’re missing my point – or at least jumping to a conclusion that I wasn’t suggesting. The game of rugby was delivered to these countries by way of colonization. The fact that it has flourished and become the national game is due to it being a GREAT sport. OF COURSE they’re still playing it today because they love the sport – but they wouldn’t be playing it (most likely) if that bit of European culture hadn’t shown up on their doorstep.

It’s why kids in NZ grow up watching and playing rugby. In the US, we all grow up watching and playing baseball/basketball/football.

And, yes, I watched NZ Maori when they toured over here and BEAT THE SHIT out of our US squad :slight_smile:

106

[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
Wrel wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
thosebananas wrote:

also i think its strange that rugby was invented in 1820 and american football around 1860. yet nfl still basically remains in america but rugby is global…

Rugby is big primarily in countries that were at some point colonized by OTHER rugby-playing countries (see United Kingdom): New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, etc. It’s influence and popularity wasn’t spread by word-of-mouth, it was a by-product of imperialistic ambition.

You’re obviously well read, but lack the basic understanding that should come with it, have you ever seen the Maori’s in NZ play rugby? Or an inter tribal 7’s tournamant in Fiji? These people play rugby cos they love it, not because of some post-Colonial cultural hangover. Plus they have TV, they are aware of what American Football is … …

Take a look at some viewing/playing figures for cricket on the Indian sub-continent, they make American Football look like … … rugby?!?

Dude, you’re missing my point – or at least jumping to a conclusion that I wasn’t suggesting. The game of rugby was delivered to these countries by way of colonization. The fact that it has flourished and become the national game is due to it being a GREAT sport. OF COURSE they’re still playing it today because they love the sport – but they wouldn’t be playing it (most likely) if that bit of European culture hadn’t shown up on their doorstep.

It’s why kids in NZ grow up watching and playing rugby. In the US, we all grow up watching and playing baseball/basketball/football.

And, yes, I watched NZ Maori when they toured over here and BEAT THE SHIT out of our US squad :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Apologies, I think I was jumping the gun, I see your point.

I went to NZ years ago to play rugby, some of the Maoris showed us some of the “tribal rituals” which were basically just battering each other senseless, I shudder to think what they may have come up with in regards to a national sport if they’d had another couple of hundred years to work thru the finer points without European influence … …

Yeah, those NZ Maori’s are a tough bunch to beat.

Many years ago the All Blacks used ot have a selection match - Probables vs Possibles. If you were in the later, your best chance of selection was not only to outplay your opposite number, but also to take him out of contention.

I have a Kiwi friend that tells me he when he was watching one of these games a fight broke out right in front of him on teh touchline, one guy got an almighty smack in mouth, later on my friend said he got to the end of his beer and there was a bloody, broken stump of a tooth in the bottom of it. He does assume that it landed in there from fight rather than the barman taking a really strong dislike to him though … …

107

This is a true story that happened locally:

[i]

In 1981 under the presidency of JD Kiely and Brian Nadler the team was having an excellent year. Kiely restarted the women�??s team which had fallen to the wayside after its initial beginnings in 1974. This was the year before the famous Skull rolling incident. This particular incident got national attention. The Juniata College Indians Rugby team was set to play the Pittsburgh Dental School team at Juniata. The Pitt team arrived at Juniata and began to warm up. In an attempt to intimidate the Juniata team some of the medical students had brought along cadaver heads as well as other cadaver body parts. As the story has been retold to me, the Pitt members began to roll the cadaver heads out onto the field, not intimidated, several of the Juniata team members picked up the heads and began tossing them around as if they were a rugby ball. Eventually a game was played (with a real rugby ball) followed by the usual party afterwards in East (Back in those days a party in east involved several kegs). During the course of the evening a fight broke out between some Juniata rugby players and some Pitt rugby players, and so Pitt was asked to leave. The Pittsburgh team�??s Van was being blocked in by a car, so they rolled the car out of the way and left it laying on its roof. As if that was not enough, on their way back to Pittsburgh, they had the bright idea to glue coins to the hand of a cadaver and use that to hand the money to the toll booth operator. Not at all amused, the toll booth operator called the state troopers who pulled the van over. The incident was covered locally and then got picked up by a national newspaper. Juniata�??s administration was not appreciative of that sort of press, and put the rugby team on probation.
[/i]

http://clubs.juniata.edu/mensrugby/history.htm

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_186776.html

108

You want to know tough?Have a little read…

If ever there was one moment when Wayne “Buck” Shelford embedded his name forever into rugby’s rich history, it was during the infamous “Battle of Nantes” in 1986.

Playing only his second Test for the All Blacks against a physically intimidating French side, Shelford found himself at the bottom of a rather aggressive ruck on 20 minutes.

An errant Les Bleus stud found its way to his groin, where it somehow managed to tear his scrotum, leaving one testicle hanging out.

Wayne Shelford factfile

This alone would leave most men screaming in agony and heading for the nearest hospital. But not Shelford.

He calmly instructed the physio to stitch him up.

The French public were gobsmacked as an over-eager pitchside cameraman filmed the stomach-turning surgery, and even more so when Shelford returned to the field and carried on playing.

“I was knocked out cold, lost a few teeth and had a few stitches down below,” recalls the Saracens coach.

"It’s a game I still can’t remember - I have no memory of it whatsoever.

“I had to watch a video to realise what the game was actually like. I don’t even remember what the score was, I don’t really want to either.”

Just for the record, New Zealand lost 16-3. It was the only time Shelford was on the losing side during his distinguished international career, a result which he appropriately describes as a “faux pas”.

109

Just to give you an idea of international viewing figures 2.2 million people attended rugby matches in last years world cup. 4.4 billion (not a typo, 4.4 billion)people watched it on television source: http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/world-cup-breaks-record/2008/02/19/1203190778823.html

I’m not sure but from what I dug up 95 million people watched the 2007 superbowl.

110

[quote]tubbiebtch wrote:
Just to give you an idea of international viewing figures 2.2 million people attended rugby matches in last years world cup. 4.4 billion (not a typo, 4.4 billion)people watched it on television source: http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/world-cup-breaks-record/2008/02/19/1203190778823.html

I’m not sure but from what I dug up 95 million people watched the 2007 superbowl.[/quote]

Since the Super Bowl is just one game, maybe you should compare it’s numbers to just one rugby match, not the entire world cup.

From your link:

[i]“This represents an average attendance of 47,000 across the 48 matches in France, Scotland and Wales…”

“Over 20 million viewers in France tuned in to watch the France versus England semi-final…”

“Coverage of the England versus South Africa final attracted the highest viewing figures for a single program in the UK in 2007 with nearly 17 million tuning in…”[/i]

From Wikipedia’s Super Bowl XLI page:

“Nielsen Media Research reported 93 million viewers for Super Bowl XLI…”

111

[quote]malonetd wrote:
tubbiebtch wrote:
Just to give you an idea of international viewing figures 2.2 million people attended rugby matches in last years world cup. 4.4 billion (not a typo, 4.4 billion)people watched it on television source: http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/world-cup-breaks-record/2008/02/19/1203190778823.html

I’m not sure but from what I dug up 95 million people watched the 2007 superbowl.

Since the Super Bowl is just one game, maybe you should compare it’s numbers to just one rugby match, not the entire world cup.

From your link:

[i]“This represents an average attendance of 47,000 across the 48 matches in France, Scotland and Wales…”

“Over 20 million viewers in France tuned in to watch the France versus England semi-final…”

“Coverage of the England versus South Africa final attracted the highest viewing figures for a single program in the UK in 2007 with nearly 17 million tuning in…”[/i]

From Wikipedia’s Super Bowl XLI page:

“Nielsen Media Research reported 93 million viewers for Super Bowl XLI…”[/quote]

Ah yeah, very good points. Also the superbowl is annual and the world cup is every four years. However I think worldwide viewing figures for the RWC cup final would exceed worldwide figures for the superbowl. Football is huge in the U.S. but nowhere else as far as I know.

112

[quote]tubbiebtch wrote:
However I think worldwide viewing figures for the RWC cup final would exceed worldwide figures for the superbowl.[/quote]

I would agree with this.

113

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is a true story that happened locally:

[i]

In 1981 under the presidency of JD Kiely and Brian Nadler the team was having an excellent year. Kiely restarted the women�??s team which had fallen to the wayside after its initial beginnings in 1974. This was the year before the famous Skull rolling incident. This particular incident got national attention. The Juniata College Indians Rugby team was set to play the Pittsburgh Dental School team at Juniata. The Pitt team arrived at Juniata and began to warm up. In an attempt to intimidate the Juniata team some of the medical students had brought along cadaver heads as well as other cadaver body parts. As the story has been retold to me, the Pitt members began to roll the cadaver heads out onto the field, not intimidated, several of the Juniata team members picked up the heads and began tossing them around as if they were a rugby ball. Eventually a game was played (with a real rugby ball) followed by the usual party afterwards in East (Back in those days a party in east involved several kegs). During the course of the evening a fight broke out between some Juniata rugby players and some Pitt rugby players, and so Pitt was asked to leave. The Pittsburgh team�??s Van was being blocked in by a car, so they rolled the car out of the way and left it laying on its roof. As if that was not enough, on their way back to Pittsburgh, they had the bright idea to glue coins to the hand of a cadaver and use that to hand the money to the toll booth operator. Not at all amused, the toll booth operator called the state troopers who pulled the van over. The incident was covered locally and then got picked up by a national newspaper. Juniata�??s administration was not appreciative of that sort of press, and put the rugby team on probation.
[/i]

http://clubs.juniata.edu/mensrugby/history.htm

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_186776.html
[/quote]

I’ve been to a few of the Juniata rugby “after parties” and I have to say that I have seen and done some of the craziest things imaginable at them. Good times. I wish the guys on my team went to such lengths to make our parties as ridiculous. Can’t quite 1-up the cadaver story though hahaha.

114

[quote]cjr1 wrote:
…
I’ve been to a few of the Juniata rugby “after parties” and I have to say that I have seen and done some of the craziest things imaginable at them. Good times. I wish the guys on my team went to such lengths to make our parties as ridiculous. Can’t quite 1-up the cadaver story though hahaha.[/quote]

Do you play? Are you still in the area?

115

I played football in college and also played rugby. I stayed with rugby for 6 years after school. Both are tough sports to play. At the pro level you will have some amazing athletes in both sports. I’d have to say at the pro level the NFL has an advantage is sheer size and strength.

I played against a fellow in NYC who was a former NFL safety for the Giants and after retiring played for a club in NYC. I believe he was a forward 8 man. Let me tell you, this guy was an animal, and he wasn’t considered a stand out by NFL standards. Imagine a TO or someone like that playing pro rugby…look out.

116

[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:

Rugby is much more of a thinking man’s game – albeit a TOUGH thinking man. It requires more experience, knowledge, and skill to really excel at than does football.

It’s a GREAT game.

It’s a tough, thinking woman’s game, too!

[/quote]

Well … actually that’s another point for American football … the fact that women don’t play it. I’ve got a real problem with all the little kids who are increasingly playing softer sports like soccer and avoiding football and even baseball. I’ve been trying like hell to get my nephews onto the football and baseball path and off the damn soccer path. If you’re playing it with your sisters it’s not a sport. I’m sad to read that rugby has been “infiltrated.”

Man am I gonna get pounded for that opinion …

117

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:

Rugby is much more of a thinking man’s game – albeit a TOUGH thinking man. It requires more experience, knowledge, and skill to really excel at than does football.

It’s a GREAT game.

It’s a tough, thinking woman’s game, too!

Well … actually that’s another point for American football … the fact that women don’t play it. I’ve got a real problem with all the little kids who are increasingly playing softer sports like soccer and avoiding football and even baseball. I’ve been trying like hell to get my nephews onto the football and baseball path and off the damn soccer path. If you’re playing it with your sisters it’s not a sport. I’m sad to read that rugby has been “infiltrated.”

Man am I gonna get pounded for that opinion …

[/quote]

It’s not even an opinion, it’s just plain wrong. According to your logic, what IS a sport? There are women’s football teams. There are female boxers and MMA fighters, baseball players, basketball players, wrestlers… Unless comparing ball size is your idea of sport, you lose. I can’t think of one sport that men play and women don’t.

118

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
cjr1 wrote:
…
I’ve been to a few of the Juniata rugby “after parties” and I have to say that I have seen and done some of the craziest things imaginable at them. Good times. I wish the guys on my team went to such lengths to make our parties as ridiculous. Can’t quite 1-up the cadaver story though hahaha.

Do you play? Are you still in the area?[/quote]

Yea, I play for my college team in pittsburgh during the school year. This summer I’m out of town for an internship in boston, though. I’ve been looking for a team around here, but I think it’s not as popular as it is in PA. If anyone is from the boston area and plays for a legit team let me know cause I’d love to join up.

119

[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:

Rugby is much more of a thinking man’s game – albeit a TOUGH thinking man. It requires more experience, knowledge, and skill to really excel at than does football.

It’s a GREAT game.

It’s a tough, thinking woman’s game, too!

Well … actually that’s another point for American football … the fact that women don’t play it. I’ve got a real problem with all the little kids who are increasingly playing softer sports like soccer and avoiding football and even baseball. I’ve been trying like hell to get my nephews onto the football and baseball path and off the damn soccer path. If you’re playing it with your sisters it’s not a sport. I’m sad to read that rugby has been “infiltrated.”

Man am I gonna get pounded for that opinion …

It’s not even an opinion, it’s just plain wrong. According to your logic, what IS a sport? There are women’s football teams. There are female boxers and MMA fighters, baseball players, basketball players, wrestlers… Unless comparing ball size is your idea of sport, you lose. I can’t think of one sport that men play and women don’t.

[/quote]

I’ll spare you the diatribe. I just think little guys are being wussified. The fact that more non-contact sports like soccer are being played doesn’t help matters.

Of course you can find a woman somewhere that’s playing football … but it’s an oddity and not commonplace. I don’t know about California but out here we don’t have girls youth football leagues springing up all over?

So unlike soccer if you’re playing in a junior football league it’s going to be a uniquely male thing to do … and I think that’s good for boys.

I think my nephews that play soccer have no idea what they’re missing out on by not playing football … or baseball for that matter.

I’m kinda hijacking this thread … so I will stop …

120

Rugby is more brutal, the lack of padding makes a HUGE difference. Football players dont notice the bumps and bruises as much, but once you remove the equipment, all those guys taking your legs out sure hurts more. You actually have at least 2 hits within 1 collision. The contact with the player, and then with the ground. There might even be more.

From a skill point of view, I think NFL’ers are more talented. The speed and skill positions would fall into the NFL advantage, you dont have so many guys that can run sub 4.5 40 yr dash times in rugby.

More fun to watch? Depends what you are after. Violence would be rugby, while skill would be football. Then again, you are talking about a few dozen men beating the shit out each of other when its all said and done.