Rugby vs American Football
-
I know that there's a lot of well traveled individuals on CP and many people from many countries. I am interested to know everyone's thoughts on rugby versus american football. Which one do you think is tougher and which do you find more interesting? I am slightly biased growing up in the US (born and bred Nebraskan; go Huskers!). The strategy for American football absolutely fascinates me. The whole attack/counter attack lends itself to a moving chess game. Some of those NFL playbooks look like Stephen King novels. As for intensity, this is harder for me. Rugby obviously doesn't have any pads and the constant movement probably prevents the players from giving it their all on every hit. But who can deny that these guys don't wear pads? Would Ray Lewis hit nearly as hard if he were running around constantly? Not sure. Any thoughts? I've seen a lot more American football than I have rugby, so it'd be nice to hear from someone with a more balanced perspective. Jim
American football is better because everything American is better. GO AMERICA! YEHAAAAW!
-
American football is better because everything American is better. GO AMERICA! YEHAAAAW!
:laugh: BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
American football is better because everything American is better. GO AMERICA! YEHAAAAW!
Soapbox. :suss: ___________________________________ Tozzi is right: Gaia is getting rid of us. My Blog [ITA]
-
American football is better because everything American is better. GO AMERICA! YEHAAAAW!
I voted that a one, well because you know why already. :laugh: I'm just letting you know I did. [edit] BTW, I assumed you were trolling with that. [/edit] Jeremy Falcon
-
I know that there's a lot of well traveled individuals on CP and many people from many countries. I am interested to know everyone's thoughts on rugby versus american football. Which one do you think is tougher and which do you find more interesting? I am slightly biased growing up in the US (born and bred Nebraskan; go Huskers!). The strategy for American football absolutely fascinates me. The whole attack/counter attack lends itself to a moving chess game. Some of those NFL playbooks look like Stephen King novels. As for intensity, this is harder for me. Rugby obviously doesn't have any pads and the constant movement probably prevents the players from giving it their all on every hit. But who can deny that these guys don't wear pads? Would Ray Lewis hit nearly as hard if he were running around constantly? Not sure. Any thoughts? I've seen a lot more American football than I have rugby, so it'd be nice to hear from someone with a more balanced perspective. Jim
Well it's like anything else I suppose... we (Americans) grew up with American Football and we're used to a certain type of play. Rugby has the intensity (physicality) of football with the non-stop action of soccer (or "Football" in virtually every other remotely civilized nation in the world...) I rather like both. I also like Arena Football (indoor, shorter field football with no real out of bounds). I wish I liked soccer... I really do wish I could get into it. I love the Olympics because it's one of the few very highly visible events that we really put our athletes up against other country's athletes. For the most part American sports are very closed to the outside world. I suppose this has to do with that nice big "pond" between us and Europe but it would be far more fun to me if leagues like the NBA, NFL, and MLB were International leagues instead of just national ones.
-
I know that there's a lot of well traveled individuals on CP and many people from many countries. I am interested to know everyone's thoughts on rugby versus american football. Which one do you think is tougher and which do you find more interesting? I am slightly biased growing up in the US (born and bred Nebraskan; go Huskers!). The strategy for American football absolutely fascinates me. The whole attack/counter attack lends itself to a moving chess game. Some of those NFL playbooks look like Stephen King novels. As for intensity, this is harder for me. Rugby obviously doesn't have any pads and the constant movement probably prevents the players from giving it their all on every hit. But who can deny that these guys don't wear pads? Would Ray Lewis hit nearly as hard if he were running around constantly? Not sure. Any thoughts? I've seen a lot more American football than I have rugby, so it'd be nice to hear from someone with a more balanced perspective. Jim
AAntix wrote:
Any thoughts? I've seen a lot more American football than I have rugby, so it'd be nice to hear from someone with a more balanced perspective.
I'm kinda curious myself. I grew up playing football in school so I would be real biased as well. Those pads do absorb a lot of the impact from a hit, so I see how it's easier to be bruised up in Rugby. Jeremy Falcon
-
Well it's like anything else I suppose... we (Americans) grew up with American Football and we're used to a certain type of play. Rugby has the intensity (physicality) of football with the non-stop action of soccer (or "Football" in virtually every other remotely civilized nation in the world...) I rather like both. I also like Arena Football (indoor, shorter field football with no real out of bounds). I wish I liked soccer... I really do wish I could get into it. I love the Olympics because it's one of the few very highly visible events that we really put our athletes up against other country's athletes. For the most part American sports are very closed to the outside world. I suppose this has to do with that nice big "pond" between us and Europe but it would be far more fun to me if leagues like the NBA, NFL, and MLB were International leagues instead of just national ones.
Matt Philmon wrote:
but it would be far more fun to me if leagues like the NBA, NFL, and MLB were International leagues instead of just national ones.
Or maybe deffierent tiers. Like after the national playoffs, we then go to the international ones. Jeremy Falcon
-
Matt Philmon wrote:
but it would be far more fun to me if leagues like the NBA, NFL, and MLB were International leagues instead of just national ones.
Or maybe deffierent tiers. Like after the national playoffs, we then go to the international ones. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Or maybe deffierent tiers. Like after the national playoffs, we then go to the international ones.
I really like the different tier's approach, but it would never work for baseball - primarily because so much of MLB is made up of guys who would play for other countries in an international tournament. Like the WBC right now - try and find one Latin-American team that isn't at least 50% MLB players. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
-
I know that there's a lot of well traveled individuals on CP and many people from many countries. I am interested to know everyone's thoughts on rugby versus american football. Which one do you think is tougher and which do you find more interesting? I am slightly biased growing up in the US (born and bred Nebraskan; go Huskers!). The strategy for American football absolutely fascinates me. The whole attack/counter attack lends itself to a moving chess game. Some of those NFL playbooks look like Stephen King novels. As for intensity, this is harder for me. Rugby obviously doesn't have any pads and the constant movement probably prevents the players from giving it their all on every hit. But who can deny that these guys don't wear pads? Would Ray Lewis hit nearly as hard if he were running around constantly? Not sure. Any thoughts? I've seen a lot more American football than I have rugby, so it'd be nice to hear from someone with a more balanced perspective. Jim
I believe those pads allow American football to be more, not less, violent. There is no way those guys would be slaming into one another at top speed if they were not wearing pads.
AAntix wrote:
go Huskers!).
Boomer Sooner! "You get that which you tolerate"
-
I know that there's a lot of well traveled individuals on CP and many people from many countries. I am interested to know everyone's thoughts on rugby versus american football. Which one do you think is tougher and which do you find more interesting? I am slightly biased growing up in the US (born and bred Nebraskan; go Huskers!). The strategy for American football absolutely fascinates me. The whole attack/counter attack lends itself to a moving chess game. Some of those NFL playbooks look like Stephen King novels. As for intensity, this is harder for me. Rugby obviously doesn't have any pads and the constant movement probably prevents the players from giving it their all on every hit. But who can deny that these guys don't wear pads? Would Ray Lewis hit nearly as hard if he were running around constantly? Not sure. Any thoughts? I've seen a lot more American football than I have rugby, so it'd be nice to hear from someone with a more balanced perspective. Jim
As a born and bred New Zealander where Rugby is almost a religion, I must contribute to this. I watch a some American Football on TV and must admit I quite enjoy it but do get frustrated at the stop and start nature of the sport. A rugby team is made up of 15 players and the game is played over 2 halves of 40 minutes and only 6 subs can be made during this time. Stoppages are brief. Yes we (rugby players) do not wear padding so our bodies have to absorb the impact in tackles - and as for players not giving it "there all" in tackles - you will have to imagine what it was like for me at 76KG being drilled by a 120kg opponent in the 79th minute. There are also the occasions when you find yourself at a bottom of a ruck where players from both sides try to rake back the ball with their feet. The modern rugby player at Super 14 and international level are incredibly fit and amazing athletes. Remember Jonah Lomu at his peak - 6 ft 4 and 220 lbs with a 100m time of 10.5 sec. He was probably the first "super" rugby player but now players of this size and capability are common in international rugby. If you get a chance to watch any of the Super 14 or Tri-Nations games between New Zealand, Australia and South Africa you will see many players of this elk (particularly the South African forward pack where some are close to 7ft and 280 lbs). Ok so I'm biased toward rugby due to where I live and our countries prowess in the sport but I do suggest everyone to watch some quality International rugby before making further comparisons.
-
Well it's like anything else I suppose... we (Americans) grew up with American Football and we're used to a certain type of play. Rugby has the intensity (physicality) of football with the non-stop action of soccer (or "Football" in virtually every other remotely civilized nation in the world...) I rather like both. I also like Arena Football (indoor, shorter field football with no real out of bounds). I wish I liked soccer... I really do wish I could get into it. I love the Olympics because it's one of the few very highly visible events that we really put our athletes up against other country's athletes. For the most part American sports are very closed to the outside world. I suppose this has to do with that nice big "pond" between us and Europe but it would be far more fun to me if leagues like the NBA, NFL, and MLB were International leagues instead of just national ones.
-
As a born and bred New Zealander where Rugby is almost a religion, I must contribute to this. I watch a some American Football on TV and must admit I quite enjoy it but do get frustrated at the stop and start nature of the sport. A rugby team is made up of 15 players and the game is played over 2 halves of 40 minutes and only 6 subs can be made during this time. Stoppages are brief. Yes we (rugby players) do not wear padding so our bodies have to absorb the impact in tackles - and as for players not giving it "there all" in tackles - you will have to imagine what it was like for me at 76KG being drilled by a 120kg opponent in the 79th minute. There are also the occasions when you find yourself at a bottom of a ruck where players from both sides try to rake back the ball with their feet. The modern rugby player at Super 14 and international level are incredibly fit and amazing athletes. Remember Jonah Lomu at his peak - 6 ft 4 and 220 lbs with a 100m time of 10.5 sec. He was probably the first "super" rugby player but now players of this size and capability are common in international rugby. If you get a chance to watch any of the Super 14 or Tri-Nations games between New Zealand, Australia and South Africa you will see many players of this elk (particularly the South African forward pack where some are close to 7ft and 280 lbs). Ok so I'm biased toward rugby due to where I live and our countries prowess in the sport but I do suggest everyone to watch some quality International rugby before making further comparisons.
stressking wrote:
The modern rugby player at Super 14 and international level are incredibly fit and amazing athletes. Remember Jonah Lomu at his peak - 6 ft 4 and 220 lbs with a 100m time of 10.5 sec. He was probably the first "super" rugby player but now players of this size and capability are common in international rugby. If you get a chance to watch any of the Super 14 or Tri-Nations games between New Zealand, Australia and South Africa you will see many players of this elk (particularly the South African forward pack where some are close to 7ft and 280 lbs).
Pads or no pads, I'd hate to smack into one of those guys :laugh: Paul
-
American football is better because everything American is better. GO AMERICA! YEHAAAAW!
have you been eating paint flakes again?
-
Matt Philmon wrote:
it would be far more fun to me if leagues like the NBA, NFL, and MLB were International leagues instead of just national ones.
There're MLB and NHL teams in Canada, so they sort of are. :D
Also, the NFL owns NFL Europe. MLB is looking to create an expansion team in Japan, last I heard.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Connor's Christmas Spectacular! Judah Himango
-
Also, the NFL owns NFL Europe. MLB is looking to create an expansion team in Japan, last I heard.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Connor's Christmas Spectacular! Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
MLB is looking to create an expansion team in Japan, last I heard.
The travel times and flight costs for this should be interesting. OTOH it does make sense that they'd be expanding there instead of elsewhere since outside of latin america it's not a major sport and we already import all of the best Latins.
-
As a born and bred New Zealander where Rugby is almost a religion, I must contribute to this. I watch a some American Football on TV and must admit I quite enjoy it but do get frustrated at the stop and start nature of the sport. A rugby team is made up of 15 players and the game is played over 2 halves of 40 minutes and only 6 subs can be made during this time. Stoppages are brief. Yes we (rugby players) do not wear padding so our bodies have to absorb the impact in tackles - and as for players not giving it "there all" in tackles - you will have to imagine what it was like for me at 76KG being drilled by a 120kg opponent in the 79th minute. There are also the occasions when you find yourself at a bottom of a ruck where players from both sides try to rake back the ball with their feet. The modern rugby player at Super 14 and international level are incredibly fit and amazing athletes. Remember Jonah Lomu at his peak - 6 ft 4 and 220 lbs with a 100m time of 10.5 sec. He was probably the first "super" rugby player but now players of this size and capability are common in international rugby. If you get a chance to watch any of the Super 14 or Tri-Nations games between New Zealand, Australia and South Africa you will see many players of this elk (particularly the South African forward pack where some are close to 7ft and 280 lbs). Ok so I'm biased toward rugby due to where I live and our countries prowess in the sport but I do suggest everyone to watch some quality International rugby before making further comparisons.
stressking wrote:
Ok so I'm biased toward rugby due to where I live and our countries prowess in the sport but I do suggest everyone to watch some quality International rugby before making further comparisons.
I think I'll do just that. Know any place online though, as I'm definately not going to pick up one on my local TV? Jeremy Falcon
-
I know that there's a lot of well traveled individuals on CP and many people from many countries. I am interested to know everyone's thoughts on rugby versus american football. Which one do you think is tougher and which do you find more interesting? I am slightly biased growing up in the US (born and bred Nebraskan; go Huskers!). The strategy for American football absolutely fascinates me. The whole attack/counter attack lends itself to a moving chess game. Some of those NFL playbooks look like Stephen King novels. As for intensity, this is harder for me. Rugby obviously doesn't have any pads and the constant movement probably prevents the players from giving it their all on every hit. But who can deny that these guys don't wear pads? Would Ray Lewis hit nearly as hard if he were running around constantly? Not sure. Any thoughts? I've seen a lot more American football than I have rugby, so it'd be nice to hear from someone with a more balanced perspective. Jim
Having been a rugby player and as a football dad in the US I can say that Rugby is tougher but American Football is rougher. THere is no way any Rugby player would hit where and as hard as American Football players do - apart from being sent off, the opposing team would "Others do as you do" for the rest of the game, making your life expectancy relatively short. Its a simple control on the violence of the game. So, we can assume American football is rougher. On the other hand, American football players are armoured up the ying-yang and protected quite well by the many umpires. The "naked" rugby player (Shirt, Shorts, and Jockstrap, single referee) experiences the following: having your ear chewed on, feet stamped on, hair pulled, Shin rakes, B***s kicked, clotheslining, kidney punches, etc while ostensibly playing a "Game". IMHO this makes rugby players pretty tough - hence it's a tougher game. My earnest advice - watch baseball. BTW - A note to the wise - A Marine "Gunny" of my acquaintence absolutely refuses to play Rugby again after being introduced to it by a bunch of British vacationers. "Rugby is a ruffians game played by gentlemen, and Soccer is a gentlemans game played by ruffians"
-
stressking wrote:
Ok so I'm biased toward rugby due to where I live and our countries prowess in the sport but I do suggest everyone to watch some quality International rugby before making further comparisons.
I think I'll do just that. Know any place online though, as I'm definately not going to pick up one on my local TV? Jeremy Falcon
try the multimedia section at www.allblacks.com - a few games highlights. Here in NZ we are spoilled by having a dedicated rugby TV channel so haven't really looked online.
-
American football is better because everything American is better. GO AMERICA! YEHAAAAW!
Way to go there; impress the foreigners :^). Oh wait; this is the net. No borders, no boundaries, no countries, no foreigners.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
American football is better because everything American is better. GO AMERICA! YEHAAAAW!
espeir wrote:
because everything American is better.
including the exagerations! :rolleyes: _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)