Better athletes - rugby/American football?

OrlandoSPUR · Apr 26, 2005

condor11 said:

its pretty good, it will get better as the tour approaches

major talking points are

rico gear starting over doug howlett

and who to partner chris jack in lock if the rumours of norm maxwell going to japan turn out to be true
Click to expand...

For some reason Howlett just seems out of place being an All Black. I dont rate the guy. who would you go with? Will Richie McCall play flanker? and how different a team is it to the one that handed it to England in the summer of 04?

PsychedelicCeltic · Apr 27, 2005

Norm Maxwell is pretty pedestrian. Is Keith Robinson fit? He might be the down and dirty lock the All Blacks need to combat the Lions lock pairing (of which I have no idea what it might be).

McCaW will play. He got concussed but there's no way he's not playing unless he gets run over by a truck before the series.

God, I want to cry looking over the Lions squad. There is such dreck in this team. McCaw is going to eat Neil Back alive (******** me if Lord Bald picks Williams at 7).

lurking · Apr 27, 2005

NFL athletes endurance athletes? Hardly. Fit? In most positions a resounding yes.

American Football is an almost completely anaerobic sport. That is not to say that the players arent fit, but that they simply do not need to develop aerobic resperation. Its one reason why they can get so big, the more muscle you have, the more oxygen you must process in order to feed your muscles for aerobic activities. You at some point are limited in size by lung capacity in aerobic sports. But in anaerobic sports, there is no limitation to how big you can get.

Now that said, the NFL is totally about short bursts of speed and power and mass. Unless your an offensive linemen where you can carry extra pounds, and are actually advantaged by the additional mass, NFL athletes are best advantaged by being extremely fit.

Athletic specialization. Every sport has it, even within the same sport. Comparing the sports is really just identifying what those specialties are, and then saying one is arbitrarily better then the other. The truth is, it depends on what your doing. Powerlifting or tug of war or sprinting? NFL. Soccer or middle distance running or crew? Rugby.

lurking · Apr 27, 2005

Btw, the patriots would do a better job in Rugby than the super 12 champion would do in football, but football is such an insanely specialized sport that there would be certain positions Rugby players would be completely overpowered at. NFL players would lose in Rugby, but could at least in the early stages give a Rugby team fits because of their superior speed and power, at least until they started to tire. Well, unless your talking about some of those offensive linemen, who if you fielded a team of only them would lose badly.

condor11 · Apr 27, 2005

OrlandoSPUR said:

For some reason Howlett just seems out of place being an All Black. I dont rate the guy. who would you go with? Will Richie McCall play flanker? and how different a team is it to the one that handed it to England in the summer of 04?
Click to expand...

Howlett dosnt create any of his chances anymore hes simply become a finisher and thats not good enough for the all blacks

rico gear on the other hand is finishing and creating havoc down his wing, he should get the number 14(probably wont do)

just like kelleher will once again play second fiddle to the useless overated marshall

McCaw should play if he is passed fit

and regarding keith robinson he has yet to play this year, theres rumours going round of rueben thorne as lock

OrlandoSPUR · Apr 27, 2005

PsychedelicCeltic said:

Norm Maxwell is pretty pedestrian. Is Keith Robinson fit? He might be the down and dirty lock the All Blacks need to combat the Lions lock pairing (of which I have no idea what it might be).

McCaW will play. He got concussed but there's no way he's not playing unless he gets run over by a truck before the series.

God, I want to cry looking over the Lions squad. There is such dreck in this team. McCaw is going to eat Neil Back alive (******** me if Lord Bald picks Williams at 7).
Click to expand...

Back is in the Lions squad? he retired from England NT rugby.

Benedict XVI · Apr 28, 2005

i've played both, football in high school, rugby with club players.

both are very painful. i got more injuries from football and more pain from rugby.

everybody thinks their sport's athletes are 'better' which is dumb. athletes are specialized. they pick a sport as a teen and push themselves in that direction. different sports demand different talents and abilities, and they don't waste time working any skill that doesn't help them.

besides, the best athletes in the world are olympic freestyle wrestlers, so this whole thing is silly.

ozhawk66 · May 1, 2005

OrlandoSPUR said:

Please in the NFL there are stoppages for the quarters, time outs, Commercial breaks, they have a 20 sec clock between each play, rarely do players run and set up.

There are stoppages all the time in rugby, and while the football player is running/jogging to and fro from the huddle to the line of scrimmage, the rugby/league player is pacing themselves during normal ply of the ball - beings most players aren't involved on each play/tackle in rugby/league.

They are usually in a huddle, if they are not playing a 2 minute offense. They are built for the explosive bit of action which lasts less than 20sec on average. They can sub in and sub out, rarely do players play both sides of the ball.

Five decades ago professional footbal players were playing both sides. Now it's physically impossible to do it on a full time basis - the game is dangerous enough as it is. The lower you go on the skill ladder, college to high scool etc... the more likely you can find players playing both ways. But not professionaly anymore. It's also one of the reasons 18 year olds can't play professional football.

In Rugby Union, a player can be subbed but not a whole side, the play is continuous, other than for an infringement, or the ball going out of play. It is physically exerting in the scrum, ruck and maul, as well as in the tackle.

More exertion is released in football than rugby from contact - more running in rugby/leagu, but where there is more contact in football, there is more running in rugby/league. This leads to much more technique in football, in all positions

The job of the forwards is to keep up with play at all times in attempt to secure the ball for the next phase of attack, a lineman on offense or defense would fail to do this in most cases.

Apples and oranges here. The only real comparison is forwrds in run support and lineman doing pulls, traps and stunts. Your 'attempt to secure the ball for next phase' is a lost comparison, as I could counter with forwards would be lost and beat up on, cause they don't know how to block or shed a block. Especially when they are way to small, compared to their NFL counterpart.

I'm sure some DE could work as a RU forward. Forwards are running basically for 80 min's and trying to excert their physical strength on others. To say rugby is not as much a contact sport as football is missing a big point. Please sit through a Super 14 game or an international match, and come back and give your educated views.

It's not, just by the very fact every play starts off with a scrum in football. Imagine if the rugby player had to hurry and pack a scrum after every tackle and pack it faster than what they are used too. And get organized. See my point there? There may be stop and start of actual play, but there is no stopping between playes in football.

I live in the US, but from England and have watched all the sports on a regular basis and played RU. I feel that you have points which are correct, but blinkered in other areas.
Click to expand...

Blinkered? I might be able o agree with that

ozhawk66 · May 1, 2005

Benedict XVI said:

i've played both, football in high school, rugby with club players.

both are very painful. i got more injuries from football and more pain from rugby..
Click to expand...

Depends if you win or lose. No pain when you win

ozhawk66 · May 1, 2005

Bluto11 said:

um, yes they do.

most players lead with there head when they tackle
Click to expand...

It looks like it, but what your really seeing is players being taught to drive through the numbers. The helmet actually goes to one side of target area. Leading with the head like your suggesting would lead to massive injuries on a daily basis. When it is actually done, players are fined, heavily.

ozhawk66 · May 1, 2005

condor11 said:

Jonah is recovering from a kidney transplant, he will make his comeback in Martin Jhonsons testimonial match in july(i think its july)

and he has already signed to play the NPC with North Harbour.
Click to expand...

I hope he can make it back to a respectable level.

ozhawk66 · May 1, 2005

lurking said:

NFL athletes endurance athletes? Hardly. Fit? In most positions a resounding yes.

Trust me, there is way to much money in the sport, and on the collegiate level too, for those coaches to NOT have those players in the best possible shape - or else.

American Football is an almost completely anaerobic sport. That is not to say that the players arent fit, but that they simply do not need to develop aerobic resperation.

Yes they do. They are running much more than you think. Hell, my coach back in high school made us work out to his girlfriend's aerobic class

Now that said, the NFL is totally about short bursts of speed and power and mass.

And how long the NFL athlete can keep it up. Trust me, they even have weight lifting endurance tests in the NFL draft combine. They see how many times a player can bench 225 lbs. And that's just one of the few endurance tests they have.
Click to expand...

ozhawk66 · May 7, 2005

To sum up the debate so far, comparing the level of play in professional rugby/league to the NFL, is like comparing pro basketball leagues around the world to the NBA. Generally speaking, anyway.

Caesar · May 8, 2005

ozhawk66 said:

that's another debate between union and league fans.
Click to expand...

No it's not - its a fact. The fact that the roles of forwards vary so much between the two rugby codes mean that the fitness requirements for each are different. Ask any forward who's played both games at even a reasonably high level.

ozhawk66 said:

I live in Australia and both codes have pretty much equal following.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about Australia. Worldwide, Rugby is a far more popular and well-known game. League has very little following outside Australia/NZ and the UK, and even there interest is highly concentrated in Qld/NSW and Northern England respectively.

Therefore, when making comparisions like this it makes sense to pick one code (league or union), or at least distinguish between the two when you're making comparisions. To equate them to one another is silly, as any player of either code would tell you. Personally, I'd use Union for this comparision, merely because it is the code most people on this board are going to be familiar with.

Caesar · May 8, 2005

ozhawk66 said:

Sums it all up? If union players are that much fitter than their NFL counterparts,
Click to expand...

If you think that this is what Hanky is saying (and I am agreeing with), then you didn't read his post. Or at least, didn't digest it properly.

Caesar · May 8, 2005

ozhawk66 said:

I don't watch union
Click to expand...

ozhawk66 said:

Geezus, how 'bout when each side in a union game does nothing but kick the ball, back and forth, on their first touch of the ball, several times in a row to each other? This scenario in union happens all the time. There are many stoppages in play in union, so don't give me this jive that all the players are running for 80 minutes in union.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I don't give much credence to your... ahem... "learned" opinion on rugby union.

Caesar · May 8, 2005

ozhawk66 said:

To sum up the debate so far, comparing the level of play in professional rugby/league to the NFL, is like comparing pro basketball leagues around the world to the NBA. Generally speaking, anyway.
Click to expand...

No. It's like comparing squash to tennis. Totally different games, totally different types of fitness. Totally different conclusions about which produces the better athlete dependant on how you define that term.

The decathlete has often been widely considered or referred to as ultimate athlete. That's why I think Hanky's definition is best. But ultimately it's a matter of personal opinion, which is why this argument is so futile.

condor11 · May 8, 2005

Caesar said:

I'm not talking about Australia. Worldwide, Rugby is a far more popular and well-known game. League has very little following outside Australia/NZ and the UK, and even there interest is highly concentrated in Qld/NSW and Northern England respectively.

Therefore, when making comparisions like this it makes sense to pick one code (league or union), or at least distinguish between the two when you're making comparisions. To equate them to one another is silly, as any player of either code would tell you. Personally, I'd use Union for this comparision, merely because it is the code most people on this board are going to be familiar with.
Click to expand...

in new zealand union is by far the most popular code

ozhawk66 · May 9, 2005

Caesar said:

No it's not - its a fact. The fact that the roles of forwards vary so much between the two rugby codes mean that the fitness requirements for each are different. Ask any forward who's played both games at even a reasonably high level.

My reply that you quoted was in response to more than just the "differences" in fitness requirements. It also had to do with differences in stoppages and flow between rugby/league. And no, what you are saying is not fact, on the whole, here.

I'm not talking about Australia. Worldwide, Rugby is a far more popular and well-known game. League has very little following outside Australia/NZ and the UK, and even there interest is highly concentrated in Qld/NSW and Northern England respectively.

Therefore, when making comparisions like this it makes sense to pick one code (league or union), or at least distinguish between the two when you're making comparisions. To equate them to one another is silly, as any player of either code would tell you. Personally, I'd use Union for this comparision, merely because it is the code most people on this board are going to be familiar with.
Click to expand...

When the differences between rugby and league needs to be noted in comparisons to football, I do so. If not, it's a slight oversight on my part.

ozhawk66 · May 9, 2005

Caesar said:

If you think that this is what Hanky is saying (and I am agreeing with), then you didn't read his post. Or at least, didn't digest it properly.
Click to expand...

Wasn't much to digest in the 1st place. Matter of fact, my retort was longer than what I was replying too.

ozhawk66 · May 9, 2005

Caesar said:

Forgive me if I don't give much credence to your... ahem... "learned" opinion on rugby union.
Click to expand...

You took my 'I don't watch union' comment out of context. I'll explain for others as you conveniently glossed over that fact; I don't watch but I have watched the sport, if you know what I mean. That's basically what I said the 1st time around.

Methinks you did this so you wouldn't answer what I had posed in the 1st place.

ozhawk66 · May 9, 2005

Caesar said:

No. It's like comparing squash to tennis. Totally different games, totally different types of fitness. Totally different conclusions about which produces the better athlete dependant on how you define that term.

The decathlete has often been widely considered or referred to as ultimate athlete. That's why I think Hanky's definition is best. But ultimately it's a matter of personal opinion, which is why this argument is so futile.
Click to expand...

Different games with comparable aspects and athletes in each sport. Saying rugby/league is different from football is stating the obvious. And I don't know why the decathlete merits discussion in this thread. The only thing NFL players have in common with Olympic athletes are Olympic sprinters and Olympic type speed amongst the faster NFL players.

Except for Hershal Walker who anchored a 4-man bobsled team in the Olympics with very little training. And they just used him for his combination of size and speed.

ozhawk66 · May 9, 2005

condor11 said:

in new zealand union is by far the most popular code
Click to expand...

That's why the NRL supports the Warriors so much.

condor11 · May 9, 2005

ozhawk66 said:

That's why the NRL supports the Warriors so much.
Click to expand...

i suppose so

ozhawk66 · May 12, 2005

Maybe a better question would be: wich positions and athletes (by name?) could make a transition from one sport to the other.