Why Isn't American Football Watched Worldwide?

[quote]-ironman- wrote:
no no. Forget sheridan. I challenge anyone to find a bigger/ stronger american football player than this rugby player ^
[/quote]

Didn’t believe what I was seeing when I first looked at that picture, amazing!

T-Nation should give moderators the power to ban dumb ppl like the OP.

[quote]bconngemini wrote:
Billy Whizz wrote:
'Cause Rugby is so fucking badass.

I’m fairly sure 90% of NFL players would dominate rugby within 2 weeks of training. Rugby is a smaller version of football, the average rugby player is weak and puny compared to the 300lb monsters we have in the NFL.[/quote]

Dude, You are just plain WRONG. In rugby, you run for 80 + minutes with a 5 min break between the halves… most NFL players take a 5 min break between plays. Besides, it takes a minimum of two or three seasons just to know the basic rules well enough to not give penalties away every five minutes.

Try tackling someone the same way you are used to doing in football with out the pads and you’ll dislocate your shoulder very quickly.

Rugby is a much superior and more physically demanding game that is extremely popular outside of the United States - THAT’s why no one else in the world watches american football.

[quote]bconngemini wrote:
Billy Whizz wrote:
'Cause Rugby is so fucking badass.

I’m fairly sure 90% of NFL players would dominate rugby within 2 weeks of training. Rugby is a smaller version of football, the average rugby player is weak and puny compared to the 300lb monsters we have in the NFL.[/quote]

Show me an NFL player that can run for 80 minutes with very few breaks, take hits with no pads. Play offense and defence back to back. Run the plays on the fly without a playbook or anyone shouting the plays out and then we can have a conversation about this.

Nothing against NFL by the way, I love watching it. The reason that other countries don’t need US sports is because they already have the sports that US sports were based on. And they are able to play them against pretty much any country in the world.

American Football exists in Europe, but it’s a minor sport, much smaller soccer in the US. I dunno, maybe it is too macho and violent for us? :wink:

As a matter of fact, I am thinking of taking up the sport, as a cooler alternative to doing soccer or whatever. I like that strength training seems to be a bigger part of your football than it is with soccer.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
bconngemini wrote:
Billy Whizz wrote:
'Cause Rugby is so fucking badass.

I’m fairly sure 90% of NFL players would dominate rugby within 2 weeks of training. Rugby is a smaller version of football, the average rugby player is weak and puny compared to the 300lb monsters we have in the NFL.

Show me an NFL player that can run for 80 minutes with very few breaks, take hits with no pads. Play offense and defence back to back. Run the plays on the fly without a playbook or anyone shouting the plays out and then we can have a conversation about this.

Nothing against NFL by the way, I love watching it. The reason that other countries don’t need US sports is because they already have the sports that US sports were based on. And they are able to play them against pretty much any country in the world.[/quote]

Different game. I don’t give a crap about rugby. I like my violent collision sports.

The hits are no where near the same in football as rugby. guys don’t hit as hard in rugby. Football has much harder hits, because of the pads. They protect the hitter a lot more than the hittee.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
bconngemini wrote:
Billy Whizz wrote:
'Cause Rugby is so fucking badass.

I’m fairly sure 90% of NFL players would dominate rugby within 2 weeks of training. Rugby is a smaller version of football, the average rugby player is weak and puny compared to the 300lb monsters we have in the NFL.

Show me an NFL player that can run for 80 minutes with very few breaks, take hits with no pads. Play offense and defence back to back. Run the plays on the fly without a playbook or anyone shouting the plays out and then we can have a conversation about this.

Nothing against NFL by the way, I love watching it. The reason that other countries don’t need US sports is because they already have the sports that US sports were based on. And they are able to play them against pretty much any country in the world.

Different game. I don’t give a crap about rugby. I like my violent collision sports.

The hits are no where near the same in football as rugby. guys don’t hit as hard in rugby. Football has much harder hits, because of the pads. They protect the hitter a lot more than the hittee.[/quote]

We call them down here WAR armor. A sport as ultra-manly and super tough as football doesn’t need pads, they’re armor against the trench warfare going on in the gridiron scrimmage.

There is a reason America has won every war its been involved in, its because we watch masculine violent collision sports like football, not effeminate tennis and soccer and rugby.

u think u won the iraq war?

the vietnam war?

go read some books man

bconngemini is obviously a troll, but I think he’s actually a European, trying to make Americans seem like idiots.

[quote]bconngemini wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
bconngemini wrote:
Billy Whizz wrote:
'Cause Rugby is so fucking badass.

I’m fairly sure 90% of NFL players would dominate rugby within 2 weeks of training. Rugby is a smaller version of football, the average rugby player is weak and puny compared to the 300lb monsters we have in the NFL.

Show me an NFL player that can run for 80 minutes with very few breaks, take hits with no pads. Play offense and defence back to back. Run the plays on the fly without a playbook or anyone shouting the plays out and then we can have a conversation about this.

Nothing against NFL by the way, I love watching it. The reason that other countries don’t need US sports is because they already have the sports that US sports were based on. And they are able to play them against pretty much any country in the world.

Different game. I don’t give a crap about rugby. I like my violent collision sports.

The hits are no where near the same in football as rugby. guys don’t hit as hard in rugby. Football has much harder hits, because of the pads. They protect the hitter a lot more than the hittee.

We call them down here WAR armor. A sport as ultra-manly and super tough as football doesn’t need pads, they’re armor against the trench warfare going on in the gridiron scrimmage.

There is a reason America has won every war its been involved in, its because we watch masculine violent collision sports like football, not effeminate tennis and soccer and rugby.
[/quote]

Did he really just refer to rugby as “effeminate”? TROLL

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
bconngemini wrote:
Billy Whizz wrote:
'Cause Rugby is so fucking badass.

I’m fairly sure 90% of NFL players would dominate rugby within 2 weeks of training. Rugby is a smaller version of football, the average rugby player is weak and puny compared to the 300lb monsters we have in the NFL.

Show me an NFL player that can run for 80 minutes with very few breaks, take hits with no pads. Play offense and defence back to back. Run the plays on the fly without a playbook or anyone shouting the plays out and then we can have a conversation about this.

Nothing against NFL by the way, I love watching it. The reason that other countries don’t need US sports is because they already have the sports that US sports were based on. And they are able to play them against pretty much any country in the world.

Different game. I don’t give a crap about rugby. I like my violent collision sports.

The hits are no where near the same in football as rugby. guys don’t hit as hard in rugby. Football has much harder hits, because of the pads. They protect the hitter a lot more than the hittee.[/quote]

If someone is in an offside position in American Football, they throw a little flag, stop play and start again after an ad break. In rugby, you are legitimately allowed to drag them out of the way with your studded boots and keep the play flowing.

That is actually the issue most non US people have to US sports, they are too stop start, there is no flow.

Things that also contribute to why it’s not watched, besides culture/tradition:

Time difference: I’d watch more NFL games if they didn’t end at 2am. Monday morning.

Commentators: Since it’s a small sport here, few people know anything about it, making it hard to find good commentators. It might seem like a small deal, but it really gets annoying.

Same as why soccer is watched world wide - the majority of people in the world are still relatively poor.

While football may be based on rugby, and resembled it quite a bit in it’s early stages(late 1800s) they’re now incredibly different games, and just shouldn’t be compared at all. It always ends in some argument of cultural bias where one person likes one sport because they grew up with it, and points out why they think theirs is superior, and then the other retorts in the same manner. Same thing with football vs soccer(I know, it’s “football” but it’s easier this way).

As for that picture of a rugby player, he is no doubt impressive, but that’s a great example of what I’m talking about. How exactly do we accept your challenge of finding someone bigger and stronger when all you did was post a menacing picture that apparently proves your point about how the sport is better because this man is in this picture?

I think we can all agree that rugby/football/hockey(your hard hitting sport of choice) are all better than soccer =p JAYKAY DON’T VIOLENTLY ASSAULT ME FOR POKING FUN AT THE MOST FANATICAL SPORT IN THE WORLD.

Lots of people worldwide just plain don’t like American anything.

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
-ironman- wrote:
no no. Forget sheridan. I challenge anyone to find a bigger/ stronger american football player than this rugby player ^

Didn’t believe what I was seeing when I first looked at that picture, amazing![/quote]

Funny how none of you juggernauts here figured out that this is the world’s strongest man Mariuz Pudzianowski who just plays some semi-pro rugby for shits and giggles in his spare time…

[quote]red04 wrote:
While football may be based on rugby, and resembled it quite a bit in it’s early stages(late 1800s) they’re now incredibly different games, and just shouldn’t be compared at all. It always ends in some argument of cultural bias where one person likes one sport because they grew up with it, and points out why they think theirs is superior, and then the other retorts in the same manner. Same thing with football vs soccer(I know, it’s “football” but it’s easier this way).

As for that picture of a rugby player, he is no doubt impressive, but that’s a great example of what I’m talking about. How exactly do we accept your challenge of finding someone bigger and stronger when all you did was post a menacing picture that apparently proves your point about how the sport is better because this man is in this picture?

I think we can all agree that rugby/football/hockey(your hard hitting sport of choice) are all better than soccer =p JAYKAY DON’T VIOLENTLY ASSAULT ME FOR POKING FUN AT THE MOST FANATICAL SPORT IN THE WORLD.[/quote]

LOL! i agree completly that they should not be compared, as its like comparing the 100ms with a 5000m race.

However, i disagree with you saying that posting that picture does not prove my point. The OP said something like: american football players are bigger and make rugby player look feeble…! So think its pretty funny that a multiple worlds strongest man winner plays rugby, yet is labeled as ‘pathetic’.

Stop trying to be so moral. Your post really does make NO sense.

"How exactly do we accept your challenge of finding someone bigger and stronger when all you did was post a menacing picture "

you accept the challenge by saying “yes i accept” (must also be put in writing and signed by a gurantor) if you require further details then you need help…you complete the challenge by finding someone bigger/stronger who plays football. I am now hoping Derek Poundstone does not.

Its to slow and the plays don’t last very long.
To many commercials
There are a lot of rules
Its expensive
Some football players aren’t football players: Kickers, Punters and Quarterbacks. All of which you can’t touch for fear of being penalized.

But I love watching Football because of the strategy involved. And Carson Palmer being the man.

I’d imagine American Football isn’t really a backyard sport either, because of all the gear? Soccer and Rugby, you just need a ball to play which probably makes it more mainstream.

[quote]bconngemini wrote:
football is seen as boring and slow overseas despite the fact its non stop big hits and insane excitement.

Why?[/quote]

It is boring and slow if you don’t understand the rules. It does NOT have non-stop hits and insane excitement. It takes time to develop the type of knowledge of the rules and appreciation for quality play that makes for an enjoyable viewing experience.