OK, see that picture underneath my name? That's our rugby team's crest. Now, I know both sports, and I can guarantee that you've got absolutely spectacular athletes playing both. Rugby doesn't have the pads, and as such doesn't have the high speed collisions that football does. Football players are better sprinters, rugby players have more endurance. They're two different sports that require somewhat different things from their athletes. If you asked rugby players and football players that truly know the other game, I bet you'd get great respect from both sides for the other game and other athletes. That's about as polite an answer as I can give, and I hope you learn to think before you speak.
Silly topic, but... An interesting insight to this is a book by former St Louis Cardinals defensive lineman Colin Scotts (can't remember the name of it, but it came out last year - I think it was All Balls or something like that). He is an Australian who played for the Australian Schoolboys (High School representative team) and was picked up by the University of Hawaii, then drafted into the NFL. While he didn't play top level rugby, he has some good points to make regarding different training methods, different demands etc. For example, he had never seriously lifted weights prior to Hawaii - all his rugby training had been based about aerobic endurance and ball skills. All his gridiron training was based on explosive power and pace - it didn't matter if you were out of breath after 2 seconds of action.
Apochyphal but... I've heard from a friend of mine (South African, rugby player, NFL fan) that American football players who've tried playing rugby say it's the hardest thing they've ever done, and rugby players who've tried American football say the exact same thing. Jonah Lomu would be scary lining up in an NFL backfield - just like you wouldn't want to face Mike Vick, much less Warren Sapp, on a rugby field.
Some of the linesmen would not last 5 minutes in a rugby field.... the top wide receivers, defensive back and runningback would be too big, fast and strong.
I remember when NFL Europe first started, they had many rugby players various positions. The number of rugby players then started to diminish and become less and less and less....
Everyone has pretty well shot the stuffing out of this erroneous contention, but just for good measure: A: Anyone who says that (American) football players are wusses because they wear pads has clearly never played the game. If they didn't wear pads, and the game were played the same, we'd lose one or two players each week. And not due to injury. B: Pads or no pads, I still think rugby players have to have a screw loose. C: If you don't believe A, go meet a retired NFL (or CFL) player who had even a modestly long career. Say, six years. Considering that the average career is about three years. Anyway, just ask him one question. What ails you? I believe all of the players from that crap The Junction Boys were portrayed by Australian actors. I wonder what they thought of American football players after filming the movie.
I confess to being a member of the RU, the Rugby Uninformed. Are there any 300+ lbs. guys playing top-level Rugby?
i doubt it. some of guys who play scrum half are pretty hefty, but not that big at all. its just too much weight to carry around a rugby pitch and be able to be effective, i believe.
Sounds about right. They have the same roots, but they require completely different skill sets and physiques. BTW - while Warren Sapp would be quite a rugger, he'd have to drop a lot of weight. Not only for endurance and mobility, but because he's way too wide to fit in the scrum. And Michael Vick can probably play anywhere in the backrow, or even #8, he'd have to learn to tackle.
The front row forwards can get up to 260.Locks are taller ,some almost '7, because they jump at lineouts (jumpball restart).I would compare the backrow forwards to linebackers.
True - I think Colin Scotts lasted about 3 years with St Louis, and I know his body is a mess. Interestingly he said that most of the battering his body took was at training (a bit like most boxer brain damage coming from repeated blows at sparring). The other thing he commented on was the lack of "team" in American football - both at college and NFL. It was all about the individual - "teammates" were a threat not a support. One of the problems with these sort of comparisons is that I think what an American sports follower considers an "athlete" is different to the rest of the world (where "athlete" conjures images of aerobic endurance etc, rather than raw explosive power).
I haven't played American football so I'm not sure how true this is, but I consider rugby to be the ultimate team sport. It doesn't matter how fast you are, if you try to score all by yourself and don't look for support, you get killed. The bread & butter plays in rugby, the ruck and the maul, require split second communication and coordination between teammates. Save for an occasional end-to-end run or a try-saving open field tackle, very little in rugby is performed by individuals only. It's hard to explain, but I can't think of any other sport where so much emphasis is placed on teamwork.
Wow its SkipShady the expert of anything and everything. Is there ANYTHING you don't have an opinion on ?
And in American football, no matter how good a wide receiver you are, you can't succeed without a good quarterback to deliver the ball. And no matter how good a quarterback you are, you can't succeed without a good offensive line to give you time to throw. I'd say US football is quite a team sport.
I know, I know, and you can say that about any sport. And like I said, I don't think I'm explaining it all that well. Football is based around a series of 1 vs 1 battles or individual actions. Very little in rugby is 1 vs 1 or individual, like a WR trying to lose a CB or an OL covering a DL. Oh, and SportBoy, long time no see. Caught the stalking bug again, have you?
I'm sorry, but you really don't understand the sport very well. The "battles" are occasionally 1v1 but not very often. An offensive line has to be able to work as a unit to be effective, since one that treats pass blocking merely as a series of 1v1 battles will never be effective at picking up a blitz. A WR might lose a CB if he's covered man-to-man, but in a zone defense, the secondary has to communicate their positioning so they can hand-off coverage at the appropriate times. And even the WR's pattern has to be run correctly because it's not the pattern that's important but the overall effect of all the patterns put together that is. Defensive linemen frequently adjust their pass rushes to allow the linebackers or secondary to blitz. In many cases, it is the job of the DL to take as many blockers out of the play as he can to permit other defensive players the opportunity to pass rush. Seriously, the game is a hell of a lot more than a series of 1v1 battles.
No this thread irritated me because Im sick of the the rugby heads saying their players are tougher than American footballers because they don't wear padding. American footballers didn't make the rules on what the standard uniform is. Maybe if it was up to them they wouldn't wear all that padding. That arguement is bs. Plus most American footballers are African Americans who grew up in the tougher inner cities and that by defination makes them lot a tougher than some New Zeland rugby player who grew up on a farm milking cows.
I know, I didn't put it the right way. I never meant to suggest that football is a purely individual game. But having been around both games, I can tell you that there is more emphasis on individual play in football compared to rugby. Yes, teams operate as units, but the basic plays are based on matchups and plays are drawn to get certain players the ball and blitzes get certain players to the QB. Or you look at how stats are kept - rushing yards, sacks, INTs, etc etc. Part of it's the American sports culture that likes to keep stats, but then it's almost impossible and pretty meaningless to keep the same type of stats for rugby.
Obvious you've never seen a Maori at play in rugby. It's also obvious you've never worked on a farm before.
Lol good point. It's certainly harder work than merely 'growing up' in a dodgy neighbourhood. And Craig Aussie had a point - it's occurred to me too that the US has a different understanding of the word 'athlete' to most other places. The sports themselves are too different to compare but in my understanding of the word 'athlete' - the rugby players have it. Sure the big guys in 'football' are huge and the fast guys are fast - but it's the fact that they can't be swapped and changed willy-nilly. There's 80 mins of running around for most of them - with (and this is the important part) no ad breaks. Never have I watched a sporting event that irritated me so thoroughly as the Super Bowl. Let's watch a game and get it done - not spend the best part of of half a day over it - not including pre or post game.