Rugby

Training Powerlifting
81

medals on a per athlete basis, the US does quite well. I think that is a much fairer way judge the olympics than a per capita basis. Per capita helps out small countries and penalizes large countries.

supermick: what “type” of rugby was that in the video clip? I spent the year studying abroad in NZ and i watched all the rugby i could down there(the super 12, all blacks vs lions…all blacks vs south africa/australia) and not once did i see any hit that would make that film reel. Those are serious hits. The hits i saw from the super 12 and the all blacks(Tana’s crew) were weak and borderline pathetic…

as for american football vs rugby? It really is apples and oranges. Both sports require different things. I do, however, think that NFL players would cross over better to rugby than vice versa. Obviously the 350 pound linemen wouldnt…but the rest of the team would. I personally find American football more entertaining to watch. To each their own, i guess.

82

[quote]Will Heffernan wrote:
I was taking the piss in my previous posts but I have to deal with this one seriously as OARSMAN has no grip on reality. I have read this response a couple of times combing it with my irony and sarcasm detector but I have to make just a few observations.[/quote]

oh brother…

[quote]

  1. you get hit a lot harder in American football than you do in Rugby.

Wrong…I’d be happy to explain this in detail if you want to PM me?[/quote]

perhaps you don’t get my point - unless you have played BOTH american football and rugby (as I have) YOU HAVE NO POINT OF REFERENCE - therefore you are talking out of your ass to say otherwise. If you don’t agree with my OPINION which based on my experience I hold to be a FACT, that’s fine. Suit up and take to the gridiron and take a few shots then come back and post.

[quote]
Here I was thinking that American Football was an infinitely more complex game than rugby??? I didn’t realise that those guys were just running around throwing themselves about aimlessly?[/quote]

I just love how you take things out of context… Why don’t you show me a Rugby Playbook and we’ll go through an NFL playbook (for both offense and defense) and then we can discuss ‘complex’

[quote]

You say you’ve played rugby but this whole statement let’s me know without doubt you have no idea what you are talking about. I’d be happy to send you some match analysis footage and I dare you to tell me that it is in anyway possible to be hit any harder? I posted a link on here previously regarding rugby league…have a look at some of those hits and get back to me.[/quote]

I played lock forward for four years.

jeez. Following your train of logic I can post an NFL greatest hits reel too - so what’s the point? Your going to get your clock cleaned in both - I just take offense to the stupid bullshit of having gridiron dudes being called pussies for wearing protection - like I add you ruggers are starting to wear.

[quote]
500lbs…what just like many Prop Forwards in international rugby? Do you have any idea what Andy Sheridan or Os Du Rant bench? No…I hear you say. [/quote]

And this is supposed to mean what? Based on relative sizes are you going to tell me with a straight face that ruggers are stronger than football players ? That prop forwards are man for man stronger than Offensive Linemen or Defensive Tackles? No… I hear you say.

[quote]
By that reasoning you should dominate all sport? I didn’t realise you did? I thought on a per capita bases the US actually performed quite poorly at International events like say…the Olympics?[/quote]

My god you’re a condescending asshole.

Are you disputing that a nation of almost 300 million with pretty much every technological advantage known to man would not boast of a truly superior athletic gene pool?

If the majority of sports in the USA were actually funded by the government and not private donations (like it is in many countries especially the old Eastern Bloc) - more people would participate (because it would be economically feasible) and it would increase the superiority the US presently has in the Olympics.

It’s actually quite amazing that USA is able to medal in many sports that while huge overseas merit but a footnote in the daily sports section. Like rowing, for instance.

[quote]
I must be wrong? Do you not think that perhaps the Pacific Islanders, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, England, Scotalnd…and on and on we go decided to play NFL there might be a chance we’d give you some food for thought.[/quote]

Perhaps just like the best American athletes playing rugger would give you boys a run for your money.

[quote]
Just a stupid comment that once again demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]

Same goes for you, buddy.

83

[quote]Gregatron wrote:

Do people in america actually know how to play rugby? because it sure doesn’t sound like any rugby i’ve ever played (and i’ve played for 22 years).
There is just too much crap to sift through in OARSMAN’s posts so I can’t be stuffed even trying to reply. [/quote]

this could be the beginning of a black hole of argument - as you say: do you international blokes even know how to play American football? Because you seem to like pontificating so much about something you know so little about.

I have no idea what kind of rugby you’re referring to - other than what I’ve played under Rugby Union rules - so I don’t understand what that bullshit snide comment is all about. Other than coming to the conclusion that you ruggers are a prickly sort who cling to some bullshit super-macho notion of their sport as the toughest one. Funny, how threatened you get when there is one out there that matches it hit for hit.

[quote]
Just one thing though. A 500lb+ bench means you’re strong but doesn’t necessarily equate to an explosively violent tackle. Watch some international rugby and see the distance that most players cover to make a ‘big hit’. Now thats power my friend.[/quote]

I have on TV and I saw England v. Scotland and Scotland v. France live at Murrayfield back when it was Five Nations… and the days of the Hastings brothers and David Sole… and it doesn’t change my opinion in the least.

You all also assume I am ripping on rugby.

Not so. As someone who played and loves the game, I am the first one to recognize the inherent differences.

I am ripping on asshole rugby snobs who call American footballers pussies for wearing protection and dismiss the sport as inferior - and yet have NEVER PLAYED THE GAME.

that’s my point. period.

84

[quote]Diomede wrote:
medals on a per athlete basis, the US does quite well. I think that is a much fairer way judge the olympics than a per capita basis. Per capita helps out small countries and penalizes large countries.

supermick: what “type” of rugby was that in the video clip? I spent the year studying abroad in NZ and i watched all the rugby i could down there(the super 12, all blacks vs lions…all blacks vs south africa/australia) and not once did i see any hit that would make that film reel. Those are serious hits. The hits i saw from the super 12 and the all blacks(Tana’s crew) were weak and borderline pathetic…

as for american football vs rugby? It really is apples and oranges. Both sports require different things. I do, however, think that NFL players would cross over better to rugby than vice versa. Obviously the 350 pound linemen wouldnt…but the rest of the team would. I personally find American football more entertaining to watch. To each their own, i guess. [/quote]

I think it was a mix of both codes to be fair. Some great hits on the lions tour od south Africa in 1997 if you can get the DVD “living with lions”…

Im not completely ignorant of the nature of the NFL, but due to the size of running backs etc i see how you feel that American footballers would cross over better than rugby players. However a large aerobic component would need to be addressed, maybe to the sacrifice of some size…hard but not difficult. Otherwise i wont argue with your statement there.

85

[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
Will Heffernan wrote:
I was taking the piss in my previous posts but I have to deal with this one seriously as OARSMAN has no grip on reality. I have read this response a couple of times combing it with my irony and sarcasm detector but I have to make just a few observations.
oh brother…

  1. you get hit a lot harder in American football than you do in Rugby.
    Wrong…I’d be happy to explain this in detail if you want to PM me?
    perhaps you don’t get my point - unless you have played BOTH american football and rugby (as I have) YOU HAVE NO POINT OF REFERENCE - therefore you are talking out of your ass to say otherwise. If you don’t agree with my OPINION which based on my experience I hold to be a FACT, that’s fine. Suit up and take to the gridiron and take a few shots then come back and post.
    [/quote]
    You’re even funny than I thought. Once again…you aren’t even making sense. Are you telling me that the only way to have a valid opinion on anything is to have first hand experience…is that your point? Do you want me to point out the flaw in this argument or does anyone else here want to help out?
    Has anybody else ever noticed that as soon as you see someone state something as FACT you can almost instantly recognise that they are talking shit…and I am not just saying this it is FACT.

I was just pointing out the stupidity of what you were saying. I wasn’t saying that NFL is not a complex game because I know that it is but unlike yourself I wouldn’t be ignorant enough to think as you did that one sport was ‘infinitely more complex’ than another.

You are making my point for me and arguing with me about points made by others which I didn’t even make a remark on. I think they are both incredibly hard sports but I don’t understand why you’d try to denigrate one sport to try and glorify another. [quote]
500lbs…what just like many Prop Forwards in international rugby? Do you have any idea what Andy Sheridan or Os Du Rant bench? No…I hear you say.
And this is supposed to mean what? Based on relative sizes are you going to tell me with a straight face that ruggers are stronger than football players ? That prop forwards are man for man stronger than Offensive Linemen or Defensive Tackles? No… I hear you say.
[/quote]
Once again you seem to be arguing with yourself. I wouldn’t try to argue this point because the last time I looked I never saw a bench press on the pitch. So either way it doesn’t mean shit…how old are you 12…you seem to be set on a my Dad is bigger than your Dad style discussion.

Once again you struck gold but probably didn’t even realise it.

What are you a nation of fucking robots…what the fuck does one have to do with the other? I think you could actually argue the other way around if you had any sense? That your ‘every technological advantage’ is what is tipping chlorine in your ‘superior athletic gene pool’. But that’s another story.

You’ve actually worn me down with your well thought out and well constructed argument…I’ll get back in my box. You’ve drained the strength out of me.

86

complex probably isnt the right word to describe the difference between NFL and Rugby. Strategic probably is.

I think NFL is more strategic. Remember, we stop after every play so we PLAN what we’re doing this play. It is sort of a physical chess match.

87

[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
Gregatron wrote:

this could be the beginning of a black hole of argument - as you say: do you international blokes even know how to play American football? Because you seem to like pontificating so much about something you know so little about.
[/quote]
What makes you think I don’t know much about American football? I’ve played it for a few seasons when I was in university and had a lot of fun. Sure, i’m no expert, but as you like to refer to all the time, i’ve also played both before.
Not trying to wind you up but it’s just some of the points you make about the complexity of American football vs Rugby make me question just how the game is played over there. That should explain my ‘snide’ comment. Sorry…‘BULLSHIT snide comment’.

I don’t think rugby or american football are the toughest sports out there. I do think that people only see the tough, physical side of rugby and not the more technical aspects of the game. I wouldn’t say that they match each other hit for hit.

Good for you.

No. I just don’t think your knowledge of the game is as complete as you think it might be. Just as I admit my knowledge of American football isn’t that complete. What you have been doing is making a lot of comparissons between rugby and american football that a few of us disagree with.

As I said, played the game, had fun, whoop-de-fuckin-doo. Not once did I call anyone a pussy.

Thanks for the input.

88

[quote]Will Heffernan wrote:

You’re even funny than I thought. Once again…you aren’t even making sense. Are you telling me that the only way to have a valid opinion on anything is to have first hand experience…is that your point? Do you want me to point out the flaw in this argument or does anyone else here want to help out?
[/quote]

Like I said, damn you’re condescending

anyway, my point is that you are made the assumption that rugby hits are harder than football hits based on a one-sided and may I add, BIASED, point of view.

I made the assumption based on MY EXPERIENCE PLAYING BOTH GAMES that footballers hit harder than ruggers.

I was stating what I BELIEVED TO BE A FACT based on MY EXPERIENCE. You fail to grasp the point that what I believe to be a fact may not be what you believe to be a fact. Clearer now? And since we have no empirical way of testing which sport does indeed hit hardest, well, we have to leave it at that, don’t we?

My ultimate point being that since you have never played American football you cannot make that declaration OBJECTIVELY - or at the very least not as objectively as I would be able to - it is merely an opinion that you are entitled to.

We’ll just agree to disagree.

[quote]
I was just pointing out the stupidity of what you were saying. [/quote]

well so was I.

[quote]
I wasn’t saying that NFL is not a complex game because I know that it is but unlike yourself I wouldn’t be ignorant enough to think as you did that one sport was ‘infinitely more complex’ than another.[/quote]

you are putting a hyper-literal interpretation on ‘infinitely’ OK how about ‘more complex’ - happy now? And that is a whole other topic for another really pointless discussion.

[quote]
I think they are both incredibly hard sports but I don’t understand why you’d try to denigrate one sport to try and glorify another. [/quote]

Man, I didn’t even go there - I ripped on people who called out American footballers for being pussies because they wore protection. I was merely illustrating some things you can pick out about rugby that knocks them down a peg or two. Rugby is a fucking cool sport, but then again, so is football.

[quote]
Once again you seem to be arguing with yourself. I wouldn’t try to argue this point because the last time I looked I never saw a bench press on the pitch. So either way it doesn’t mean shit…how old are you 12…you seem to be set on a my Dad is bigger than your Dad style discussion.[/quote]

I was just replying to what you wrote. And you’re right - in the end it doesn’t mean shit.

[quote]
What are you a nation of fucking robots…what the fuck does one have to do with the other? I think you could actually argue the other way around if you had any sense? That your ‘every technological advantage’ is what is tipping chlorine in your ‘superior athletic gene pool’. But that’s another story.[/quote]

No. You didn’t get my point. The point was if there was AWARENESS of all these ‘minor’ sports on a wider scale, and the government had a system in place to make it economically feasible for people to participate in those sports, the inherent selection amongst the American population would give them a significant advantage against most every other country - which following that train of thought would translate to even more gold medals.

For example, what if you found a way to get some of those tall inner city black kids that would ordinarily play basketball give rowing a try? If USRowing tapped into that talent pool, instead of relying on all-white upper class kids (for the most part), you’re going to tell me that over 10 years or so, it would not stand a very good possibility of reaping better results at the international level? That same train of logic could apply to all ‘minor’ sports in the US. Even rugby.

Another example, you’re going to tell me that if USA Rugby found a way to siphon off some of those really fast black kids that would end up playing Wide Receiver, Cornerback, Linebacker, or Running Back in American football and channeled them into Rugby - that USA Rugby would not make an immediate exponential improvement on the international arena? I would gather to say yes.

the bulk of USA rugby comes from upper income whites or ex football players who picked up the sport when they football careers came to an end. If USA Rugby found a way to expand the potential pool of young men who are exposed to the sport (i.e. at a young age like in Europe and the Southern Hemisphere) and not in their late teens/early twenties like most USA ruggers) , then the USA’s results on the international arena would begin to improve dramatically.

Yes. I agree. It’s been a slow day at work, thus I have a lot of free time on my hands !

cheers

89

I was just thinking about Jerry Collins running about causing mayhem in the NFL…I shudder to think about Jerry as is he is now but imagine him pharmaceutically enhanced NFL style…I pity the fool that tried to get past JC.

90

oarsman, I assumed you played rugby here in the states at either collegiate or men’s league level? If that’s the case then you honestly won’t know shit about rugby. The basics yeah, but nothing intricate. I am a South African, moved to the states when I was 16, and my u16 B side rugby team in high school back home played a more complex game than my college team did here in the stats all 4 years I played for them.

And yeah, NFL players are amazing athletes, the T.Os, Ray Lewiss, and Corey Dillons are the kind of athletes that would be just as amazing were they playing rugby instead of football. However, how many of the “big boys” in football can run around the field for 90 minutes, tackling and carrying the ball, lifting in the lineouts, and still be a force to be reckoned with in the scrum? At the age of 33? )Blatant Os du Randt reference for those in the know).

American Football is highly specialized, rugby players have to have a MUCH LARGER skillset to be considered a top player. I mean, if all you had to do was hurtle ur body at some1 all game and not worry about having to push in a scrum or lift in a lineout it really shouldn’t be too hard to excel at that right?

Like someone said, comparing apples and oranges. But rugby still rules. Go Boks!

91

well…

i don’t know about all this confusion…

female rugby players are absolutely animalistic in the sack.

and that’s all i need to say about that. objections? i though not.

92

oh, favorite player position?

inside (her) center, of course!

93

holy cow,

this has just spiraled out of control, now all the ruggers are gang attacking me as if I put myself out there as an authority on rugby.

I merely said I had played it before and was relating my personal experiences. Period. You are taking what I believe to be a fact and are making it out to be some grand universal law or something.

This argument is not only pointless (as in we can argue this to death in circles ) but it’s getting boring.

Let’s agree to disagree and drop it shall we?

94

[quote]rugby86 wrote:
After reading through various posts around this site for a while, I’ve noticed that quite a few of you guys are rugby players. I enjoy the sport as it truly is a kick ass game, however I’m contemplating a possible stint with the crew team to try something new.

Considering that I will still be active within the gym in addition to conditioning and practices, which sport do you all think would be better for overall gains to go along with my workouts?[/quote]

going back to the original topic at hand. I had alot of trouble keeping mass playing rugby. I think alot of it stemmed from a lack of knowledge and use of dietary practices and injury management (not lifting whenever u spraind something is really really dumb). That being said, after taking the fall off, I plan of playing again in the spring for a local men’s team. Got 30 pounds on my average in-season weight right now and looking to gain a bit more while slowly upping my cardio (for ne1 interested, I played at the amazing weight of 170-180 lbs, and I’m 6’1"). Now, while my lifts never really went down, maybe a few pounds here and there, my fitness levels were pretty high most of the time, since u get run like a dog. All in all, I’d do what you enjoy the most, as that will motivate you both on and off the field and the gym to excel.

95

[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
Like I said, damn you’re condescending
[/quote]
I know and I keep agreeing with you…for heavens sake just move on.

Go back and read the posts again. Try to read them slowly this time. I at no stage mentioned the hitting in rugby being harder than NFL…the only possible reference was to the match analysis footage I have and sitting you down and having you explain to me how it is possible to hit any harder. You’re the one that is crapping on about how superior NFL is to rugby and if you want me to point this out to you clearly just ask and I will lay them all out end to end for you.

Here come the capitals…the last resort of a man drowning in his own shit figuratively…if you have to resort to shouting you’ve obviously have lost the plot.

Do you know what a fact is?

Clear as mud…like the rest of your argument.

Actually we can…but that is probably beyond you.

This makes absolutely no sense. How the hell do you ‘objectively’…I use that term loosely as I’m not sure you even understand what it means…whether the hits are harder in NFL or Rugby? Did you get the same guy to suit up and hit you ‘NFL’ style…then strip down return to his starting position and hit you ‘rugby’ style? This is probably the dumbest thing you’ve said…and that takes quite a statement compared to some of the other pearls of wisdom.

Something else we can agree on.

I’m supposed to actually work out what you mean now?

Once again now I realise I should of been working out what you actually meant rather than what you actually wrote…that’s probably what led to the confusion.

I didn’t realise you were a ‘master race’…my grandfathers fought wars against people who sprouted that same line in bullshit. I wish you realised the stupidity of what you are saying…problem is I think you may actually believe it.

You really are an idiot.

[quote]
the bulk of USA rugby comes from upper income whites or ex football players who picked up the sport when they football careers came to an end. If USA Rugby found a way to expand the potential pool of young men who are exposed to the sport (i.e. at a young age like in Europe and the Southern Hemisphere) and not in their late teens/early twenties like most USA ruggers) , then the USA’s results on the international arena would begin to improve dramatically.

You’ve actually worn me down with your well thought out and well constructed argument…I’ll get back in my box. You’ve drained the strength out of me.

Yes. I agree. It’s been a slow day at work, thus I have a lot of free time on my hands!

cheers [/quote]
It must be hard to get so much typing done with only one hand.

96

[quote]OARSMAN wrote:

Rugby is a fucking cool sport, but then again, so is football.

[/quote]

Now this is a FACT

97

[quote]alstan90 wrote:
Rowings shit, their’s only one sport worse than it, that AMerican Football bollox. What’s al that about? They fkin restart everytime the ball touches the floor, and wear loads of padding, pussies. In the whole match their must be about 2 minutes of play.

Seriously though, the whole world plays Rugby, not so many row.

England world champions WHOOOO!

(sorry its not to often we English get
to brag about sporting achievements, I have to savour it where I can.)

Stay on the right side of the river![/quote]

How can you brag about England? They have been spanked all year. I would be hesistant to say they are world champions. Although you are holding to tight to 2003 he World Cup is only reflective of that year. If a team was to be labelled “World Champions” at present then that would have to go to the New Zealand.

98

[quote]B-Rock wrote:

How can you brag about England? They have been spanked all year. I would be hesistant to say they are world champions. Although you are holding to tight to 2003 he World Cup is only reflective of that year. If a team was to be labelled “World Champions” at present then that would have to go to the New Zealand. [/quote]

No. England are indeed World Champions until 2007. They earned it and we shouldn’t take that away from them…yet. Just 2 more years to go…

99

If thats the case, lets remember that America is 85 years reigning olympic rugby champions! woo!

100

[quote]Gregatron wrote:
B-Rock wrote:

How can you brag about England? They have been spanked all year. I would be hesistant to say they are world champions. Although you are holding to tight to 2003 he World Cup is only reflective of that year. If a team was to be labelled “World Champions” at present then that would have to go to the New Zealand.

No. England are indeed World Champions until 2007. They earned it and we shouldn’t take that away from them…yet. Just 2 more years to go… [/quote]

All about the peak. All about the peak.