[quote]hardgnr wrote:
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]
You really only need a ball. The hits won’t be spectacular, but it’s still a blast to play.
[quote]lamach wrote:
u think u won the iraq war?
the vietnam war?
go read some books man[/quote]
aAtually we won Vietnam. We killed more of their guys and won every major battle. but somehow the papers say we didn’t. And Iraq, please.
[quote]bconngemini wrote:
We call them down here WAR armor.[/quote]
Pads are for pussies. I bet you use the pussy pad on the squat bar too, because it’s ultra manly, right?
Nice trolling, cumbucket.
[quote]Cockney Blue 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.
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.[/quote]
There’s a flow, just a different type. I don’t enjoy soccer and ruby because I think they are boring. There is more strategy and intense action to NFL football. Think knife fight vs BJJ fight. the action is faster and nastier and does not take as long.
Or gunfight compared to boxing match. There are 22 guys running in different directions at or around each other. I like it. the flow of sports like rugby or soccer boors me to death.
[quote]Dre the Hatchet wrote:
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!
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]
I knew but didn’t give a shit. Personally i think Marusz is a douchebag from personal dealings with him.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
That is actually the issue most non US people have to US sports, they are too stop start, there is no flow.[/quote]
x2.
The highlights/ abreviated games aren’t so bad, but watching a game that has an hour of game time over a three hour period is kinda boring, especially if it’s not something you’ve grown up with.
It probably has some similar reasons of preferance for Americans as nascar & drag racing as opposed to formula one.
But who really cares.
And also i believe, Indian & Chinese movies are the most watched in the world, not American.
Think about it this way.
When you can understand that, you may understand why people don’t watch american football outside the US.
Bigger questions are:
Why have American’s changed the spelling of words in the English language??
Why don’t they use the metric system?
[quote]-ironman- wrote:
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.
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.[/quote]
I admit that I didn’t recognize the picture to be Pudz at first, but are you seriously insinuating that he, a non professional rugby player, is apparently what we are to judge the sport on? This is exactly the shit I was talking about, how above and beyond people will go to “prove” their sport is the best. The OP was a fucking troll and you got baited hard(which was the point of my post basically(these threads are always made to just bait bullshit ignorant arguments), but my post is the one that makes no sense because I chose not to bash on a sport I respect(while it not being my favorite), and didn’t recognize a person in a picture(again, oops on my part, I glanced at it and thought hey he looks big and moved on).
Anyhow, I would bet money Derek Poundstone has played football, much like many previous American strongmen have a history in the sport(Kaz was a D1 standout).
Edit: It’s not about being on some moral high ground, it’s about not being ignorant to the differences in athleticism required of each sport. You could list rugger accomplishments and the different freaks in your sport, and I could name the freaks in ours and their accomplishments, where does that get us? There isn’t really a debate to be had, just dick swinging because of opinion on which sport you prefer which you will obviously have a bias for in any argument.
[quote]hawaiilifterMike wrote:
Same as why soccer is watched world wide - the majority of people in the world are still relatively poor.
[/quote]
The poorer a country, the more they watch soccer on TV. Because it costs more to watch football than soccer.
[quote]-ironman- wrote:
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.
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.[/quote]
I think you’re going about trying to prove your sport’s worth in the entirely wrong way.
While I’ll certainly concede rugby’s aerobic superiority to American football, attempting to pit its athlete’s size and strength against that of NFL (or even college) players is a sure-fire way to lose an argument.
I can’t debate that the picture you posted didn’t hold a phenomenal example of power and athleticism - no one could. But does he stand as an average player in your sport? Are there athletes like that spread over every rugby field in the world, knocking each other’s teeth into the eyes of their teammates? My guess is no. In fact, I’d say the gentleman in the background of the picture is a more accurate representation of the average.
Now, contrast this to any professional football team in America. Even the abysmal Detroit Lions are filled to the brim with physical freaks, all of whom would be stand-outs, if not stars if their skills were appropriated to the game of rugby. Ernie Sims, Julian Peterson, Calvin Johnson - there’s simply no shot at matching those type of athletes on any rugby team worldwide. And bear in mind, this is the worst NFL team - a roster for the Dallas Cowboys or San Diego Chargers would read much differently.
I understand that you’re defensive of your sport, but play to its strengths. Me posting a picture of a more impressive physique (of which I could find in my own locker room) doesn’t prove anything about the sport overall.
As it stands, there aren’t too many rugby players internationally running sub-4.5 40 yard dashes at 230 pounds, but I can guarantee there is one on every NFL roster.
-Eric
[quote]-ironman- wrote:
Rational Gaze wrote:
bconngemini wrote:
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.
Good day, sir.
no no. Forget sheridan. I challenge anyone to find a bigger/ stronger american football player than this rugby player ^
Also, american football players would not dominate rugby in two weeks. Would take longer than this to get to grip with the rules, and i also think aerobic demands would be challenging.[/quote]
fuck yo sport
Eric, I’d have to totally disagree with you there, I think you’d find a few 260+ lb guys on every super 14 team who run a 40 sub 5 seconds. Haven’t done any research on that but if you watch top level rugby, there are a ton of guys who are both big and fast as hell.
That said, this is a pretty pointless argument. NFL Linemen (which is really what the 300lb monster comment was about, no?) are that big and strong because the energy demands of their sport allow them to be. Your average equivalent in rugby, say a prop on a super 14 team, will be smaller (albeit much leaner) because being 300 lbs would make him slower and less effective at rugby. However I would argue that the strength deficit is pretty negligible. High bodyfat has a place in football where it doesn’t in rugby.
So yes, a rugby prop wouldn’t play well on an NFL line the same way an NFL lineman wouldn’t play well in a game of rugby, they’re completely different sports with completely different demands.
As for the hitting comment, there’s no way to quantify what constitures a “rougher” sport. From experience, football has more concussive impact while rugby has more striking and body contact. Is it more difficult to bring a 250lb guy down over 1 yard with padding (high transfer of force, ie football) or bring him down over 5 with no pads and be rewarded with a kick to the face for your efforts? (rugby)
For the original question: football sells in the Us because, surprise surprise, it’s evolved to sell to Americans. It doesn’t sell well in Europe because of cultural differences that it hasn’t/won’t adapt to.
Correction: I said super 14, and really meant top level international rugby.
Dunno what I was thinking there.
Anyway, it seems that most people in north america tend to think that any sport that isn’t the “big 4” in north america (NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA) is somehow “bush league” when in reality it’s just not true.
Put it to you this way:
North america has a population around 500 million people, and from that supports the NFL, a league consisting of 32 teams, each with 53 players on the roster.
Compare that to Europe and Oceania (not counting south africa and some other nations) with a combined population around 750 million, and from that they support about 15 good international teams, each with 23 players on roster.
…See where I’m going here? Rugby has a larger population base supporting a smaller number of elite players, I could just as easily make the argument that the athletes in the NFL wouldn’t compare to athletes at the top of rugby.
[quote]justkevin wrote:
Eric, I’d have to totally disagree with you there, I think you’d find a few 260+ lb guys on every super 14 team who run a 40 sub 5 seconds. Haven’t done any research on that but if you watch top level rugby, there are a ton of guys who are both big and fast as hell.
That said, this is a pretty pointless argument. NFL Linemen (which is really what the 300lb monster comment was about, no?) are that big and strong because the energy demands of their sport allow them to be. Your average equivalent in rugby, say a prop on a super 14 team, will be smaller (albeit much leaner) because being 300 lbs would make him slower and less effective at rugby. However I would argue that the strength deficit is pretty negligible. High bodyfat has a place in football where it doesn’t in rugby.
So yes, a rugby prop wouldn’t play well on an NFL line the same way an NFL lineman wouldn’t play well in a game of rugby, they’re completely different sports with completely different demands.
As for the hitting comment, there’s no way to quantify what constitures a “rougher” sport. From experience, football has more concussive impact while rugby has more striking and body contact. Is it more difficult to bring a 250lb guy down over 1 yard with padding (high transfer of force, ie football) or bring him down over 5 with no pads and be rewarded with a kick to the face for your efforts? (rugby)
For the original question: football sells in the Us because, surprise surprise, it’s evolved to sell to Americans. It doesn’t sell well in Europe because of cultural differences that it hasn’t/won’t adapt to. [/quote]
While I’d have to continue to stand at odds with you on the athleticism point, I think you make some absolutely great insights.
If more posters took your approach, I think we could avoid the “pads r 4 pussies” comments, as well as the ignorant pontification associated with most American football fan responses.
Maybe the American colleges should take a page out of the NBA’s playbook and start recruiting the younger players in that Super 14 leagues you spoke of. Georgia Tech could always use another 260+, sub 5.0 player. 
-Eric
Edit: In your second post, what barometer are you using to gauge such a comparison?
Though I don’t want to delve too deep into this issue here, one cannot predict the top levels of athleticism by simply using the population as the measurement. Certain regions are conducive to producing certain athletes (Latin America produces great baseball talent, Brazil produces great fighters, Europeans and soccer, Kenya and its distance runners). Population is a nonsensical variable when the specific demands of the sport are concerned.
Ever heard of a Chinese sprinter? With over a billion people, seems they should dominate the track. The fact is, Jamaica owns the sprints with a population 1/50th of China.
Calvin Johnson, a former teammate and friend of mine, is what I would consider one of the top athletes in the NFL. He’s about 6’5", 240 pounds, and ran a 4.35 forty at the NFL combine. (We had him as fast as 4.26 at Tech.)
We couldn’t even measure his vertical because he topped out the machine - we guessed it at 47" because it stopped at 45". He left power cleaning over 350 pounds with sub 6% bodyfat.
Now, I just can’t believe that there is a rugby player, even at the top, with those sorts of stats. I’d love to be proved wrong, though.
My point is that the same sorts of unreal numbers follow names like Reggie Bush, Vernon Davis, Brian Arakbo, Brian Cushing, Percy Harvin, Darren McFadden, LaDanian Tomlinson, Ernie Sims, Terrell Owens, Ed Reed, etc. I could literally go on and on.
When you compare the top to the top, population gets thrown out the window.
Honestly, I’d love to hear about some top rugby talent and how they compare to some of the guys I listed.
…perhaps the OP could go here: Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums - Index You’ll feel much more at home there…
It’s like beer. It’s all about what your brought up on.
And you can’t punch each other in the head with a helmet on!
Why all the comparrison between Rugby and NFL? They are two different sports each with different demands. Rugby Players have developed their fitness relative to their sport and likewise with NFL. I don’t understand why people constantly have to compare sports, and take part in the ‘my sport is better then yours’ argument.
I use to play high level rugby, but I appreciate many other sports including NFL equally, and If I was playing NFL id want to be wearing all the padding as well, as the variety of hits and tackles allowed is bigger then what the rules of rugby Union permit.
And why is’nt American Football big in other countries? Well for the most part, there is little or no history of these sports being played in many other countries outside the US. So there are not many teams to go and play for. It is not played in school, and exposure to the NFL is limited unless you have pay tv and stay up late(ish) at night to watch it. Also, as it was mentioned before, Most people are used to sports where there are long periods of play followed by short stoppages, which is at odds with American football.
I think that last point is the reason why Basketball is a lot more popular around the world then other sports that originated in north America. Its fast moving, does not require any equptment aprt from a ball, and it can be played in most environments including cities where parks and other large spaces are at a premium.
[quote]hardgnr wrote:
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]
Football is the back yard sport of choice, it is also the front yard choice, and street choice except for maybe stick ball.
How do you keep track of the ‘10 yards in 4 downs’ in a back yard game?
The best athletes in the world are in the NFL, this is a universally recognized FACT. Kids everywhere watch superathletic NFL players like Peyton Manning and Reggie Bush and want to become them.
Rugby and soccer don’t get good athletes because they are “bush league”, if there were good athletes in soccer or rugby they would upgrade to the NFL because NFL players make millions while soccer and rugby don’t. NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL are MAJOR leagues, soccer and rugby don’t have multimillionaires and big billion dollar worth teams and a huge talent pool of elite athletes.
The only time people watch soccer is during the World Cup and we all see how soccer players are 170lb weaklings who couldn’t bench press their own weight and rugby is only watched in Australia and New Zealand which have small populations and don’t produce as many elite athletes as America.
[quote]tjr-dk wrote:
How do you keep track of the ‘10 yards in 4 downs’ in a back yard game? [/quote]
3 completions equal a first down, 3 downs to get to the tree, 4 plays to score…the game gets adjusted with what you have. We used to play in the streets of my apartment complex growing up. We would use cars, cracks/lines in the cement, anything to mark goal lines and first downs.
I really don’t care about debating anything. If you are subjective you will see where the superior athletes lie in each league and that a higher majority of them are in the NFL.
The rugby player in the picture is 6"5’ and 261 according to the link posted with picture. It said he benches 500 and squats 600. I would say that is pretty average in the NFL.
Brandon Jacobs, a RB in the NFL is about the same size. Calvin is a freak…Let me know when yall get together again.
There are too many players to name that are freaky in the NFL. Julius Peppers: 6"7’, 285.