6'5, 256 lbs meets 6'3, 238 lbs

[Diode]

Originally Posted by Mael

lol.. the fat boys gotta wear pads and have breaks for every play.

fight science already addressed this dude.

your boys would get shattered into a billion pieces for a 6'8" 360lb dude who runs a 4.6-4.8 40 running at them full speed. it wouldn't even be fair.

SCIENCE, BITCH!

[Mael]

A 6'8 350 pound ballerina who's never played contact sports in his entire life would take down a professional NFL or Rugby player with ease.

As a game, Rugby is more ruthless, enduring and physically demanding. Plus we don't cover ourselves in tampons and don't wear construction helmets. Please stop.

[Diode]

Originally Posted by Mael

A 6'8 350 pound ballerina who's never played contact sports in his entire life would take down a professional NFL or Rugby player with ease.

As a game, Rugby is more ruthless, enduring and physically demanding. Plus we don't cover ourselves in tampons and don't wear construction helmets. Please stop.

loling so hard at you

the inferiority complex of rugby fans is hysterilol

@uh-oh to thread

[Zen]

You get your best rugby player and line him up across a guy like Wilfork and see what happens. Wilfork will eat the rugby player.

[Fart]

These Europeans don't realize American Football is evolved from soccer and rugby. It's like a smart phone vs Morse code.

[Mael]

Originally Posted by Zenland

You get your best rugby player and line him up across a guy like Wilfork and see what happens. Wilfork will eat the rugby player.

Bill Cavubuti, 6'2, 364 lbs (39 pounds heavier than Wilfork, and their the same height).

[Mael]

Uini Antonio, 6'5, 334Ibs.

[Zen]

Wilfork faces guys BIGGER than him every Sunday and beats them. Usually he's double teamed too, but Wilfork is just an example. Take any defensive lineman and put them up against a rugby player and the rugby player loses.

[Meth]

Lol at foreigns

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by Diode

@uh-oh to thread

lol

man

..

i don't even.

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by Mael

As a game, Rugby is more ruthless, enduring and physically demanding. Plus we don't cover ourselves in tampons and don't wear construction helmets. Please stop.

it is not more ruthless, you do probably need more endurance for it tho. physically demanding is subjective tho.

american football is more ruthless, BECAUSE, of those "tampons, and construction helmets" as you so eloquently put it. for example, the NFL has been looking at ways to make the game safer. one idea that gets thrown around is to do away with pads altogether.

which makes you think, wouldnt it be more dangerous without pads?

the answer is no. you are too concerned about protecting yourself when you don't have pads on. you are more concerned with proper technique, like tackling to the midsection with your head up, shoulder lowered, wrapping up etc.

with pads, you can missile headfirst into people, and as long as you hit them harder than they hit you, you will come out ok. the other person not so much.

so the whole oh they have pads argument, to me is retarded. if anything it makes it MORE dangerous. the most vicious hits in rugby don't hold a candle to the bottom tier big hits in american football

its just the way the games are.

those "breaks" as you put it, are a huge factor in it as well, you need good endurance in rugby because your on the move alot. that directly effects your BURST and overall speed however.

look at a cheetah. it is one of the fastest creatures there is. what it gains in speed, it loses in endurance. so a big guy in rugby, will have more endurance than a football guy, but he isnt gonna have the same burst, or speed of a football guy.

that video you posted to start the thread, has a guy RUNNING. full go, he's got plenty of strides under him, and he is hitting a guy running maybe half as fast. here is a video in football under the same circumstances in american football



skip to 1:06

thats 6'1 250 meeting 6'3 245

[Meth]

That wasn't even full speed lol.

Ray da Gawd

[Inno]

rugby is for people who couldn't get a visa.

fact.

[Neighbor]

[Mael]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

it is not more ruthless, you do probably need more endurance for it tho. physically demanding is subjective tho.

american football is more ruthless, BECAUSE, of those "tampons, and construction helmets" as you so eloquently put it. for example, the NFL has been looking at ways to make the game safer. one idea that gets thrown around is to do away with pads altogether.

which makes you think, wouldnt it be more dangerous without pads?

the answer is no. you are too concerned about protecting yourself when you don't have pads on. you are more concerned with proper technique, like tackling to the midsection with your head up, shoulder lowered, wrapping up etc.

with pads, you can missile headfirst into people, and as long as you hit them harder than they hit you, you will come out ok. the other person not so much.

so the whole oh they have pads argument, to me is retarded. if anything it makes it MORE dangerous. the most vicious hits in rugby don't hold a candle to the bottom tier big hits in american football

its just the way the games are.

those "breaks" as you put it, are a huge factor in it as well, you need good endurance in rugby because your on the move alot. that directly effects your BURST and overall speed however.

look at a cheetah. it is one of the fastest creatures there is. what it gains in speed, it loses in endurance. so a big guy in rugby, will have more endurance than a football guy, but he isnt gonna have the same burst, or speed of a football guy.

that video you posted to start the thread, has a guy RUNNING. full go, he's got plenty of strides under him, and he is hitting a guy running maybe half as fast. here is a video in football under the same circumstances in american football



skip to 1:06

thats 6'1 250 meeting 6'3 245

Alright, I get what you're saying. You have some good points, some I agree with, some I don't. Thing is, I can't really write a thesis about why Rugby is tougher than American Football because I don't fully understand the latter. And I suppose the same goes for you (concerning Rugby).

So let's just leave it at - their both great sports, period. (Rugby is tougher, though).