Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperHits make sports eminently watchable. Other sporst have great hits as well like Aussie ruels football. Great clean tackles in soccer are great like Cannavaro's in th 06 world cup. Hits are far better in the college game than in the NFL.
The big hits in both sports are really fun to watch. It's a tough choice for me. What do you think?
Originally posted by FMFAgainst the appeal for who? If you think American football doesn't appeal to the masses you're fricking kidding yourself. Of course it doesn't have the international appeal of say, soccer or F1 racing. But nobody can reasonably argue that football doesn't appeal to a massive following.
This counts against the appeal and dignity of American football, not for it.
As far as dignity, that's silly. Hard hits do nothing to take away from the dignity of the sport. Players acting like jackasses in the endzone, crying over multi-million dollar contracts, acting like hoodrats or premadonas - maybe. But that's more of an indictment of the NFL, not football as a sport.
Originally posted by SeitseA nice, entertaining team on team fight with some wonderful cheap shots thrown in. I just watched a compilation of some hard rugby hits, and does seem like an awesome sport I could get into.
That is because they're wussies, my friend. 🙂
These are real men, though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeWehP9Uijc&feature=fvst
But I still maintain the size, strength and speed - combined with the wide-open field of football makes for much more brutal hits. They're just freaks of nature and open-field play generates more velocity.
I think rugby is brutal because they don't wear pads, but in American football they *have* to wear pads.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperGee, we would have to check each sport's rule book for the allowed hits.
A nice, entertaining team on team fight with some wonderful cheap shots thrown in. I just watched a compilation of some hard rugby hits, and does seem like an awesome sport I could get into.
But I still maintain the size, strength and speed - combined with the wide-open field of football makes for much more brutal hits. They're just freaks of n ...[text shortened]... gby is brutal because they don't wear pads, but in American football they *have* to wear pads.
Then we would know if rugby players are more tough than American football players or vice versa, provided that the allowed roughness is equivalent. If the latter is the case, then they're both humans so their strength and speed is the same and their resistance should be idem as well, if you know what I mean.
Any rugby fans around these forums who could clarify for us?
Originally posted by SeitseFrom what I know about football and what I've seen on rugby, it seems the "hitting" rules are both pretty loose.
Gee, we would have to check each sport's rule book for the allowed hits.
Then we would know if rugby players are more tough than American football players or vice versa, provided that the allowed roughness is equivalent. If the latter is the case, then they're both humans so their strength and speed is the same and their resistance should be idem as ...[text shortened]... well, if you know what I mean.
Any rugby fans around these forums who could clarify for us?
How can you possibly discount the dynamics of how the games are played isn't a factor? Football allows for much more opportunities for both, the ball carier and the defenders to accelerate to full speed before impact.
Horse jockies and Sumo wrestlers are both humans, so should their size and strength be the same? Go to any official NFL site and look up the height, weight and 100 yard dash times of their players (positions will greatly affect those stats of course). Pro football players are freaks of nature.
Originally posted by sh76I'm glad you remember old Ron! IMO he should have been ordaned as one of the greats, certainly one of the great punishers. But since retirement I never hear about him.
I still think it's a minor miracle that Ronnie Lott never killed anyone. If you went over the middle into his secondary to try to catch a floating pass, you'd better have a good health insurance policy.
You could always count on him at least once per game for one of those hits that makes the room go, "Oooooooo!"
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperBy natural means? 😉
Pro football players are freaks of nature.
Actually you are right, they are not comparable in size nor muscles. Yet such thing could work either way in favor of your theory or mine: if and only if American football players are naturally humongous, then kudos to the rugby players for taking so wild hits without having the muscles.
It would be like you and me. Since you're a soldier, I presume that you have far more muscles and athletic features than me, a guy who spends 8 to 10 hours per day at the office and exercises as much as a bronze statue. If we both take the same tackle and I end up with no bruises, it has a special 'added bonus', lulz.
- - -
For crying out loud, where's Crowley, that rugby freak, when you need him? I'll PM him to see what's allowed in rugby and what not.
- - -
* Ad cautelam until a rugby connoisseur enlightens us re: their rules.
Originally posted by SeitseBut the unfortunate disconnect with football is the guy carrying the ball is typically an average sized guy getting pounded by a 'roided out gurilla.
By natural means? 😉
Actually you are right, they are not comparable in size nor muscles. Yet such thing could work either way in favor of your theory or mine: if and only if American football players are naturally humongous, then kudos to the rugby players for taking so wild hits without having the muscles.
It would be like you and me. Since you're a s ...[text shortened]... at not.
- - -
* Ad cautelam until a rugby connoisseur enlightens us re: their rules.
Trust me, I am not taking away from rugby as that sport is also brutal and they don't wear pads. I'm just making the point that in football they MUST wear pads. Many Europeans frown on it but they really don't understand the sport.
2 edits
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI'm a Raider myself so don't get me wrong: I understand and enjoy the sport greatly.
But the unfortunate disconnect with football is the guy carrying the ball is typically an average sized guy getting pounded by a 'roided out gurilla.
Trust me, I am not taking away from rugby as that sport is also brutal and they don't wear pads. I'm just making the point that in football they MUST wear pads. Many Europeans frown on it but they really don't understand the sport.
I just don't know about rugby and in my head it takes lots of nuts to jump in there without a helmet and stuff. I wouldn't play American football at my age and in my condition, for that matter, so the pic in my head is perhaps not that trustworthy anyway.
I wonder how many people playing rugby get concussions?
A few decades ago, people didn't think concussions were a big deal. You get your bell rung - you sit until the cobwebs clear out and then you get back in there. We now know that any concussion must be taken very seriously and that every effort needs to be made to prevent them.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that rugby would be similar to lacrosse in terms of the kinds of hits you'd be subjected to - and lacrosse players all wear helmets.
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI said I was an admirer of American football and then offered some personal analysis. And you go off like I have slighted your mother.
Against the appeal for who? If you think American football doesn't appeal to the masses you're fricking kidding yourself.
If you can't figure out that I was talking about the 'appeal' it has for me, or - regardless - you counter that with 'viewing figures' then I have overestimated your ability to correctly estimate what people are bringing to a discussion that you apparently think has to be "won".
Originally posted by FMFI think you're reading way too much into my response. Sure I misunderstood you to mean broad appeal vs. your own, but relax.
I said I was an admirer of American football and then offered some personal analysis. And you go off like I have slighted your mother.
If you can't figure out that I was talking about the 'appeal' it has for me, or - regardless - you counter that with 'viewing figures' then I have overestimated your ability to correctly estimate what people are bringing to a discussion that you apparently think has to be "won".
A lot of tackles made in American Football are be illegal in Rugby Union, plus you can get taken out without the ball in AFL, right?
This is the reason for the helmets at least. Some of those tackles would break necks for sure.
If these guys were really as awesome as some Americans believe them to be then all the other armour they wear would be unnecessary, surely...
Watch some Australian Rules to see some crazy punks trying to kill each other.