NationStates Jolt Archive

Its very simple. Which is better or. which do you prefer?

American football, i've played both, but i'll stick with my starting middle linebacker position and tight end

:upyours: rugby

American football, i've played both, but i'll stick with my starting middle linebacker position and tight end

:upyours: rugby
Rugby is American football without the padding and restriction.

Go Munster! Go Munster! Munster!

*Falls about the place drunkenly*

Neither are "better": it's completely subjective to the player/spectator.

American football, i've played both, but i'll stick with my starting middle linebacker position and tight end

:upyours: rugby

Rugby rules. More action, more strategy, more skill, and besides real men don't wear pads.

That said, Australian Rules football is better than both of these sports. :)

I prefer Rugby - though I've not much else to say on the matter, heh. I don't watch American football because I find it a bit boring - rugby is the only sport I don't find makes me cry with boredom though.

Rugby rules. More action, more strategy, more skill, and besides real men don't wear pads.

That said, Australian Rules football is better than both of these sports. :)
Explain. What are some of the rules?

Yeah, rugby wins hands down. 80 minutes of near non-stop action.

Compared to American football with its 15 seconds of action and 2 minutes of waiting about...

Rugby is American football without the padding and restriction.
American Football is rugby without fey little men, but with 350 pound men hitting each other as hard as they can every 35 seconds

Rugby, hands down.

Find a pub filled with Welshmen (or Irishmen, or both if they're playing each other) some year during the 6 nations. You'll have a great time.

And then, watch some Tri-nations matches and realise what mediocre rugby you saw the Europeans playing.

BASEBALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I really don't care about either of the others.......:P

Football. More strategy, harder hits, wonderful passing.

Rugby is fun to watch too though, and more fun to play.

American Football is rugby without fey little men, but with 350 pound men hitting each other as hard as they can every 35 seconds
"Little men"?

Have you ever seen the size of most of the rugby guys? They're fucking massive

http://www2.raisport.rai.it/news/sport/rugby/199910/13/3804bef8017b3/lomu1.jpg

Have you ever seen the size of most of the rugby guys? They're fucking massive

Two words:

Welsh props.

There's nothing little about rugby.

"Little men"?

Have you ever seen the size of most of the rugby guys? They're fucking massive

Not all of them.

http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1068013256425_2003/11/05/1106-fanning,0.jpg

There's certainly nothing little about rugby players and when they hit (at speed) there are no pads or helmets to soften the blow.

Not all of them.

http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1068013256425_2003/11/05/1106-fanning,0.jpg

Stringer? He's not really that small, he just looks it surrounded by the other guys...

This is what happens when you play rugby. You get poked in the arse.

http://www.portyrugby.com/news/2000-2001/010409-finger.asp

"Its very simple. Which is better or. which do you prefer?"

1) Which rugby? League or Union? It's very simple: there is a difference.

2) American football is the best version of American football: neither League nor Union come close. League and Union are better versions of rugby than American football. It's very simple when you take a moment to think about it .....

Your point was .........?

"Little men"?

Have you ever seen the size of most of the rugby guys? They're fucking massive

http://www2.raisport.rai.it/news/sport/rugby/199910/13/3804bef8017b3/lomu1.jpg

Here is the roster of one team (The saints)

Name position height (ft, inches) weight (lbs) college and weigt in stones for you
Allen, James LB 6-2 245 26 5 Oregon State 17.5
60 Archibald, Ben T 6-3 320 27 2 Brigham Young 22.9
20 Bellamy, Jay S 5-11 200 33 13 Rutgers 14.3
28 Bennett, Michael RB 5-9 209 27 6 Wisconsin 15
17 Berger, Mitch P 6-4 228 33 12 Colorado 16.3
48 Bienemann, Troy TE 6-4 258 23 R Washington State 18.4
57 Bockwoldt, Colby LB 6-1 237 25 3 Brigham Young 16.9
4 Bouman, Todd QB 6-2 226 33 9 St. Cloud State 16.1
68 Boykin, McKinley DT 6-1 289 23 R Mississippi 20.6
35 Branch, Jamaal RB 5-11 230 25 R Colgate 16.4
9 Brees, Drew QB 6-0 209 27 6 Purdue 14.9
70 Brown, Jammal T 6-6 313 25 2 Oklahoma 22.4
92 Bryant, Tony DE 6-6 282 29 7 Florida State 20.1
29 Bullocks, Josh S 6-1 207 23 2 Nebraska 14.9
0 Bush, Reggie RB 6-0 203 21 R Southern California 14.5
89 Campbell, Mark TE 6-6 260 30 9 Michigan 18.6
3 Carney, John K 5-11 185 42 17 Notre Dame 13.2
12 Colston, Marques WR 6-4 231 22 R Hofstra 16.5
85 Conwell, Ernie TE 6-2 255 33 11 Washington 18.2
21 Craft, Jason CB 5-10 187 30 8 Colorado State 13.3
96 Davis, Tommy DE 6-2 257 23 R North Carolina 18.2
11 Eugene, Bruce QB 6-0 268 23 R Grambling State 19.1
73 Evans, Jahri G 6-4 318 22 R Bloomsburg 22.7
59 Faine, Jeff C 6-3 291 25 4 Notre Dame 20.8
56 Fincher, Alfred LB 6-1 238 22 2 Connecticut 17
52 Fujita, Scott LB 6-5 250 27 5 California 17.9
37 Gleason, Steve S 5-11 212 29 6 Washington State 15.1
76 Goodwin, Jonathan OL 6-3 318 27 5 Michigan 22.7
94 Grant, Charles DE 6-3 290 27 5 Georgia 20.7
41 Harper, Roman S 6-1 200 23 R Alabama 14.3
18 Hass, Mike WR 6-1 209 23 R Oregon State 14.6
19 Henderson, Devery WR 5-11 200 24 3 Louisiana State 14.3
86 Hilton, Zachary TE 6-8 268 25 4 North Carolina 19.1
74 Hoffmann, Augie G 6-2 315 25 2 Boston College 22.5
61 Holland, Montrae G 6-2 322 26 4 Florida State 23
81 Horn, Chris WR 5-11 195 28 3 Rocky Mountain College 14
87 Horn, Joe WR 6-1 213 34 11 Itawamba (Miss.) JC 15.2
47 Houser, Kevin LS 6-2 252 28 7 Ohio State 18
43 Hudson, Ray RB 5-9 191 25 R Alabama 13.6
6 Hughes, Connor K 5-10 172 22 R Virginia 12.3
53 Iwuchukwu, Bobby LB 6-2 246 22 R Purdue 17.6
89 Jones, Jamal WR 5-11 205 25 1 North Carolina A&T 14.7
33 Joseph, Keith RB 6-2 249 24 1 Texas A&M 17.8
44 Karney, Mike FB 5-11 258 24 3 Arizona State 18.4
54 Kuale, E.J. LB 6-2 232 22 R Louisiana State 16.6
82 Lawrie, Nate TE 6-7 256 24 2 Yale 18.3
32 Lay, Josh CB 6-1 197 23 R Pittsburgh 14.1
69 Ledford, Dwayne G 6-4 300 29 3 East Carolina 21.4
77 Leisle, Rodney DT 6-3 315 25 3 UCLA 22.5
84 Lewis, Michael WR 5-8 173 34 6 None 12.4
15 Lyman, Chase WR 6-4 210 23 2 California 15
10 Martin, Jamie QB 6-2 205 36 12 Weber State 14.6
39 Mason, Grant CB 6-0 192 22 R Michigan 13.7
65 Matla, Pascal C 6-4 315 25 R Eastern Illinois 22.5
75 Mayberry, Jermane G 6-4 325 32 11 Texas A&M-Kingsville 23.2
25 McAfee, Fred RB 5-10 193 37 15 Mississippi College 13.8
26 McAllister, Deuce RB 6-1 232 27 6 Mississippi 16.6
34 McKenzie, Mike CB 6-0 194 30 8 Memphis 13.8
5 McPherson, Adrian QB 6-3 218 23 2 Florida State 15.5
51 Melton, Terrence LB 6-1 235 29 3 Rice 16.8
49 Moore, Chris LB 6-1 235 23 R East Carolina 16.8
16 Moore, Lance WR 5-9 177 22 1 Toledo

I got tired of doing the maths. You get the picture though.

67 Nesbit, Jamar G 6-4 328 29 8 South Carolina
93 Ninkovich, Rob DE 6-2 252 22 R Purdue
36 Phillips, Anwar CB 6-0 187 23 R Penn State
88 Poole, Nate WR 6-2 204 29 5 Marshall
54 Rabe, Russel LB 6-2 228 23 1 Minnesota-Duluth
46 Schurman, Nate FB 6-2 247 24 2 Missouri State
38 Scott, Bryan S 6-1 219 25 4 Penn State
63 Setterstrom, Chad G 6-3 310 25 1 Northern Iowa
58 Simmons, Anthony LB 6-0 240 29 8 Clemson
24 Smith, Dwight S 5-10 201 27 6 Akron
91 Smith, Will DE 6-3 282 24 3 Ohio State
83 Stallworth, Donte' WR 6-0 196 25 5 Tennessee
27 Stecker, Aaron RB 5-10 213 30 7 Western Illinois
78 Stinchcomb, Jon T 6-5 315 26 4 Georgia
23 Stoutmire, Omar S 5-11 205 31 10 Fresno State
64 Streif, Zach T 6-7 349 22 R Northwestern
97 Sullivan, Johnathan DT 6-3 315 25 4 Georgia
22 Thomas, Fred CB 5-9 185 32 11 Tennessee-Martin
99 Thomas, Hollis DT 6-0 306 32 11 Northern Illinois
31 Thomas, Joey CB 6-1 190 25 3 Montana State
14 Thomas, Levon WR 6-1 195 22 1 Georgia Tech
79 Verdon, Jimmy DE 6-3 280 24 2 Arizona State
90 Villarreal, Brandon DT 6-1 289 22 R Purdue
7 Weatherford, Steve P 6-3 215 23 R Illnois
98 Whitehead, Willie DE 6-3 300 33 8 Auburn
42 Williams, Ray CB 6-1 205 22 R Purdue
95 Woodard, Cedric DT 6-2 310 28 7 Texas
66 Young, Brian DT 6-2 298 28 7 Texas-El Paso


There's little hope of finding a rugby team that averages anywhere near that big

"Its very simple. Which is better or. which do you prefer?"

1) Which rugby? League or Union? It's very simple: there is a difference.

2) American football is the best version of American football: neither League nor Union come close. League and Union are better versions of rugby than American football. It's very simple when you take a moment to think about it .....

Your point was .........?

Union . . . of course

If it meant Rugby League (or tackling practice as real rugby players call it) it would have said so. No-one outside of Rugby League-land (St Helens, Wigan etc) would ever think Rugby I wonder if that means League or Union

<snip>

So? What does that prove? That both Rugby and American Football have big guys playing it. Big deal. At the size these guys are, a few inches here and there doesn't make that much difference.

Explain. What are some of the rules?

Well with looking at the rules from a strategic point of view, if I have the ball, and you are about to tackle me, I have a number of options at my arsenal.

A. I can of course pass it off to a teammate. The pass of course has to be backwards, (like a lateral pass in American football) though usually a good rugby player will pass it sideways so that his/her teammate when sprinting onto the ball will catch it in midstride so that they pass the 'gain line' (an artificial line which is created when a pass is made - the point of it being that a team should when making a pass ensure that the pass should be made so that the player catching the ball has a strong chance of making it back to the gain line and beyond else the team has lost field position which is a very important aspect to the game).

B. I can try and run through you. You would be surprised how effective it is to put your shoulder down and ram through your opponent. From there you may be able to set up a 'ruck' or 'maul' if you are tackled, or if you break through then you are most likely in a good position to score.

C. You can kick the ball. This option is an AWESOME option because, unlike football, when a player does not have the ball you CANNOT BLOCK THEM. That is illegal and called OBSTRUCTION. Even UNINTENTIONAL OBSTRUCTION (where a player accidentally gets in the way of an opposing player pursuing the ball) is a penalty. This means then that if I kick the ball, your momentum will be heading my way, with my momentum will be heading your way, and since you cannot tackle me, it is fairly likely that if my accuracy is excellent I should be able to recover the ball I kicked with plenty of room to run (I have on occasion kicked a ball over an opponent's head, run onto it, caught it, then run it in for a score in matches). Also for the record there are different types of kicks, including a drop kick (which is where you drop the ball so it hits the ground before kicking it as it rebounds upwards). If you successfully do a drop kick and it sails through the uprights you score 3 points for your team.

Again there are many more rules to the game (rugby has more rules in fact than soccer) so if you are interested in specifics feel free to ask.

EA Sports rugby 2005 has an excellent tutorial on their video game for PS2 and Xbox called 'Rugby 101' which if you ever get to play it, is an awesome way of learning the game and what I usually use as an aide to teach students how to play the game when I am coaching them.

Union . . . of course

If it meant Rugby League (or tackling practice as real rugby players call it) it would have said so. No-one outside of Rugby League-land (St Helens, Wigan etc) would ever think Rugby I wonder if that means League or Union

Had you considered that I might come from that part of the world?

Here is the roster of one team (The saints)

Name position height (ft, inches) weight (lbs) college and weigt in stones for you
*Snip*

Largest about 22/23 stone, which is more or less the same as an international rugby team (given the size of the US that's what they equate to easiest), and most backs now weigh in between 13 and 15 stone (average ones I'd say, Lomu is clearly an exception, as is Shane Williams)


Two words:

Welsh props.

There's nothing little about rugby.

Well, the Jones pair must be about 70% hair, I bet they're just tiny men who have a phobia of hairdressers;)


Stringer? He's not really that small, he just looks it surrounded by the other guys...
And he always stands between the two second rows, always, mind you he's not as bad as the 5'2 japanese scrum half standing between his second rows.

For me it's rugby, since it has more opportunity for individual flair, whereas in American football it's so regimented and coach orientated. The most flair a qb shows is in who to pass to, or very rarely to run himself. A WR averages a few yards after every catch.

Basically it's like watching the coach drive a car. He calls the shots and the various parts do their job. At least in rugby the parts can be inventive on their own.

Here is the roster of one team (The saints)

Name position height (ft, inches) weight (lbs) college and weigt in stones for you
...
There's little hope of finding a rugby team that averages anywhere near that big

or that slow. If I want to watch sumo wrestling then this is impressive. Besides this this is what makes football not as fun to watch as rugby. Rugby = action, not dead men walking running a few metres then the whistle blows and they huff and puff for 2 minutes.

For the record I do like football, just rugby is better, and Australian rules football is the best (though if they ever created a full contact soccer league I may change my mind) lolrofl :)

Playing I prefer rugby, Watching I prefer rugby. Course I never got into American football. And yes I'm american.

So? What does that prove? That both Rugby and American Football have big guys playing it. Big deal. At the size these guys are, a few inches here and there doesn't make that much difference.

You brought up the enormous size of Rugby players not me. Why?

Ignorance of the size of football players is my first guess , but it is only a guess. Please tell me why you brought it up in the first place if it is indeed almost meaningless.

Its very simple. Which is better or. which do you prefer?

I prefer rugby, but it takes more people to play right and still have fun.

You can play football 3 vs. 3. Even 2 on 2 if possible. With rugby, any less than six on a side just isn't any fun.

I prefer rugby, but it takes more people to play right and still have fun.

You can play football 3 vs. 3. Even 2 on 2 if possible. With rugby, any less than six on a side just isn't any fun.
For small sided games soccer is easily the best. I've tried American Football 3 on 3 and found it very boring. Rugby's not much better, but neither are good with less than 5.

or that slow. :)

I would dearly love to see the best 40 yard dash or 100 meter dash times of the fastest 20 rugby players versus the fastest 20 twenty football players. Fast my butt. Rugby players are elderly slowcoaches with busted up knees and wornout legs

You brought up the enormous size of Rugby players not me. Why?

I think you'll find that I didn't.

Ignorance of the size of football players is my first guess , but it is only a guess.

Well, ignorance of the size of rugby players is my guess as to why Sal y Limon brought it up in the first place, but that's only a guess.

Please tell me why you brought it up in the first place if it is indeed almost meaningless.

Yes, I'd be intrigued to know why he brought it up.

I prefer rugby, but it takes more people to play right and still have fun.

You can play football 3 vs. 3. Even 2 on 2 if possible. With rugby, any less than six on a side just isn't any fun.

In 7s (7 a side) we practice full field 3 on 3. It is fun and gruelling.

2 on 2 in football? What is the point, better off just doing 500 with 3 players catching and one kicking.

I would dearly love to see the best 40 yard dash or 100 meter dash times of the fastest 20 rugby players versus the fastest 20 twenty football players. Fast my butt. Rugby players are elderly slowcoaches with busted up knees and wornout legs

And these pearls of wisdom come from years of experience of watching Rugby and seeing how fast the backs are?

I think you'll find that I didn't.



I find that Sal Y limon brought up the tininess of rugby players (which isnt accurate) and you brought up their enormous size.

And these pearls of wisdom come from years of experience of watching Rugby and seeing how fast the backs are?


Yes

I would dearly love to see the best 40 yard dash or 100 meter dash times of the fastest 20 rugby players versus the fastest 20 twenty football players. Fast my butt. Rugby players are elderly slowcoaches with busted up knees and wornout legs

When I used to play rugby I ran 11 seconds flat (yea I know anyone can say anything so if you don't believe me I honestly do not care). Your statements though show you have never truly watched a good game of rugby. Never watched the English team and Mr. Robinson especially, and never ever seen a game of rugby played 7 a field (where you have to be fast or else you are useless). Rugby players are in much better shape than football players (including wide receivers and kick returners). They can run faster, for longer periods of time. Your statements show you are not at all familiar with the game which is unfortunate since it is an awesome game. :)

Seriously, watch a rugby match of 7s and tell me honestly tell me after that they are slow. lolrofl :D

I find that Sal Y limon brought up the tininess of rugby players (which isnt accurate) and you brought up their enormous size.
And you can't see the direct relation?

Sal Y limon brought up the issue of the size of Rugby players. I never once mentioned American Football in my reply to his post, only that Rugby players are generally actually quite large and not, as he had asserted, small. You clearly took it as an attack on the size of American Football players. Some issues there?

Yes
Of course.

When I used to play rugby I ran 11 seconds flat (yea I know anyone can say anything so if you don't believe me I honestly do not care). Your statements though show you have never truly watched a good game of rugby. Never watched the English team and Mr. Robinson especially, and never ever seen a game of rugby played 7 a field (where you have to be fast or else you are useless). Rugby players are in much better shape than football players (including wide receivers and kick returners). They can run faster, for longer periods of time. Your statements show you are not at all familiar with the game which is unfortunate since it is an awesome game. :)

Seriously, watch a rugby match of 7s and tell me honestly tell me after that they are slow. lolrofl :D

Who was the last Rugby player in Olympic track and field running events?

The fastest American Football players (Wide receivers or Cornerbacks) are on a par in pace with top rugby wing threequaters. There may be, at most, one tenth of a second over 100 meters advantage to the American footballers on average. This is more than compensated for by the speed of the big guys. Neither the O line nor the D line in American football has to be quick over any distance. A good D end has to be explosive, fast over 10 to 20 yards. The equivalent in Rugby Union (a flanker) has to be nearly as fast as the winger (Can you imagine a D end as fast as a wide out?).

I too have played both. I have played all over the pitch in RU except nos 9 and 10. I am not a half back. When I first played American football I started as a corner back, but with my knees giving up on me I moved to D End.

My experience says that rugby players are generally in better condition, but american footballers are generally stronger.

The two are very different, and trying to decide which is better is like trying to decide if blondes are better than brunettes. A matter of personal taste.

Who was the last Rugby player in Olympic track and field running events?
Clearly that proves everything.

Sorry, you win. My mistake.

I would dearly love to see the best 40 yard dash or 100 meter dash times of the fastest 20 rugby players versus the fastest 20 twenty football players. Fast my butt. Rugby players are elderly slowcoaches with busted up knees and wornout legs
I don't know if they have official 40 yard times, off the top of my head I know Habana and Howlett both do the hundred quite comfortably (in sprinting terms) under 11 seconds (and with Howlett I'm thinking back to what I was told his times were as a Junior Athletics sprinter for NZ so he could be faster), I'd have to do research for others (if they have official times at all), but the likes of Gear, Rocokoko, Caucaunibua (especially) etc are a long way short of slow.

And you can't see the direct relation?

Sal Y limon brought up the issue of the size of Rugby players. I never once mentioned American Football in my reply to his post, only that Rugby players are generally actually quite large and not, as he had asserted, small. You clearly took it as an attack on the size of American Football players. Some issues there?

No i tried to prove or disprove your theory by providing statistics. You replied not with statistics but with half assed insults. Please note the difference.

Clearly that proves everything.

Sorry, you win. My mistake.


It is easily as much proof of anything as you have provided.

Who was the last Rugby player in Olympic track and field running events?

I honestly do not know cause I don't follow that stuff. Are you going to tell me that someone who won a medal at these events plays football though?

Just cause they compete in track by the way does not mean they are faster. Watch the game, watch the backs, watch 7s before you comment since your statements show that either you ignore the speed rugby players have, or that you have never watched a true game of rugby and therefore are just talking with no knowledge behind your words. Honestly watch a real rugby game and you will know I am right. :)

Who was the last Rugby player in Olympic track and field running events?
I think a welsh wing in the 50s did it (and won), apart from that Doug Howletts was a junior sprinter for NZ, but really they don't bother with the athletics circuit, they (believe it or not) concentrate on rugby rather than athletics.

I don't know if they have official 40 yard times, off the top of my head I know Habana and Howlett both do the hundred quite comfortably (in sprinting terms) under 11 seconds (and with Howlett I'm thinking back to what I was told his times were as a Junior Athletics sprinter for NZ so he could be faster), I'd have to do research for others (if they have official times at all), but the likes of Gear, Rocokoko, Caucaunibua (especially) etc are a long way short of slow.


Fair enough. it would at least be an interesting competition to run.

The two are very different, and trying to decide which is better is like trying to decide if blondes are better than brunettes. A matter of personal taste.

My tastes very from year to year though I have to go with brunettes in the end. :) Seeing I married a brunette that is currently looking over my shoulder sorta makes me have to say this too. :) lolrofl

Stick a pie at the finish line and I dare say a few of the larger players might do better than expected;)

No i tried to prove or disprove your theory by providing statistics. You replied not with statistics but with half assed insults. Please note the difference.
Half assed insults?

Hmm...pity, I don't recall any 'half assed insults' in direct response to your statistical post. Maybe you're confusing me with somebody else? No matter.

I didn't reply with statistics, because I wouldn't know where to get comparable statistics.

As well as, of course, the fact that I had no theory other than "Rugby guys are big" that could be disproven. Nowhere there did I claim they were as big as, or bigger than, American Footballers. Posting statistics of American Footballers was of absolutely no relevance to my post.

I'm afraid you're disproving a theory that you imagined.

Stick a pie at the finish line and I dare say a few of the larger players might do better than expected;)

lolrofl :) oh my gosh, so true LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No i tried to prove or disprove your theory by providing statistics. You replied not with statistics but with half assed insults. Please note the difference.

What you provided were the claimed weight and heights of a professional team. You know, as well as I do, that these are not all that accurate. Additionally they do not prove anything except that some of the players are huge, and some are not.
I myself am 6' 4" and 250lbs (or so), does that make me an american footballer or a rugby player, or perhaps now a forum poster. (The latter only now, previously both of the former, but not professionally)

I'm an American, but I have to say, Rugby is 10,000 times as interesting. American Football just has way, way too many breaks. Not enough action.

It is easily as much proof of anything as you have provided.
That's because there's nothing to prove; you cannot prove definitely that Rugby is better than American Football or vice versa. To try and do so is a waste of time and energy.

That's because there's nothing to prove; you cannot prove definitely that Rugby is better than American Football or vice versa. To try and do so is a waste of time and energy.

'Notbad' agrees to disagree with us. That is his right. Just wish he would watch a game of 7s, or of English rugby with Jason Robinson, or any rugby with good speedy backs so he knew that rugby is high action, and high paced (though again, Australian Rules Football is more action than both sports for the record). :)

Idiot american football players are sissies. they need pads. unlike us rock hard dudes :headbang:

Right, after a minimum of research (eg, checking rugby forums where this is a common discussion) some officially recorded times (eg using proper equipment etc, Lomu for example is thought to have unofficially run faster than 10.8) But this is hardly a definitive or exhaustive list. But it's some of the more common picks as fastest.

1.Tonderai Chavangha-10.2
2.Brett Stapleton-10.3
3.Bryan Habana-10.4
4.Brent Russell-10.5
5.Joe Rokocoko-10.6
6.Doug Howlett-10.7
7.Jonah Lomu 10.8
8.Rupeni Caucau-10.9
9.Solly Tyibilika 10.91

Its very simple. Which is better or. which do you prefer?

Whatever happened to good ol' fashioned beating the shit out of your fellow man? Rugby, Football, Bowling, whatever you want. Isn't it the ass kicking that counts?

HOCKEY = RULES!!!
RUGBY = AWESOME!
AMERICAN FOOTBALL = *yawn*

Idiot american football players are sissies. they need pads. unlike us rock hard dudes

Almost 60 posts and nobody's had brought up that slur that always seems to haunt this debate everywhere I see it. WELL DONE ALL! (Excepting Tripnosis.)

Tripnosis, pre-padding, the fatality rate was about to get Am. Football banned as too dangerous. The rules are different and allow for play that, sans pads, results in that high fatality rate.

American football is padded rugby minus the tactics with ad breaks.

Rugby combines complex tactics, hard hitting mano e mano action and non-stop action for the full game.

P.S.: this is the coolest smiley ever :sniper:

Union . . . of course

If it meant Rugby League (or tackling practice as real rugby players call it) it would have said so. No-one outside of Rugby League-land (St Helens, Wigan etc) would ever think Rugby I wonder if that means League or Union

"Real Rugby"?

Is that like Real Tennis? An antiquated version with too many for people, that is only played by posh people?

They are both good sports, though I much prefer rugby league, I am better at rugby union. Generally people who get emotional about which one is better have never really played either, eg "Originally Posted by Tripnosis
Idiot american football players are sissies. they need pads. unlike us rock hard dudes" - I bet he has never played for a rugby club in his life.

League is the main version in Brisbane and Sydney, which are not in the North of England. Both versions of rugby aretiny though, it might be true that the biggest country where RL is the main sport is little Papua New Guinea (Pop: 5 Million), but then the biggest country where rugby union is the main sport is New Zealand (Pop: 4 Million).

Its very simple. Which is better or. which do you prefer?

To Play:

Rugby league.


To watch:

Rugby Union


But I enjoy American Football as well, the tactics, strategy etc are pretyt interesting. of course I find watching it on the tv really boring, but having watched one game in a park in Boston, when you get a few mates to play, tis a great game.

I really don't know enough about either sport to decide which one I like better. I enjoy watching them both, and as a side note, I prefer college football to the NFL. Haven't played much of either sport. Flag football and a few pickup games with friends are about the extent of my personal experience with American football. As for rugby, I went to a couple practices of the club team at my university when I was a freshman, then abandoned it in favour of ultimate frisbee.

For the rugby lovers out there: what's the difference between rugby union and rugby league?

I really don't know enough about either sport to decide which one I like better. I enjoy watching them both, and as a side note, I prefer college football to the NFL. Haven't played much of either sport. Flag football and a few pickup games with friends are about the extent of my personal experience with American football. As for rugby, I went to a couple practices of the club team at my university when I was a freshman, then abandoned it in favour of ultimate frisbee.

For the rugby lovers out there: what's the difference between rugby union and rugby league?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_league

Those'll help you.

No i tried to prove or disprove your theory by providing statistics. You replied not with statistics but with half assed insults. Please note the difference.
Well, if it's stats you want:
A few of the current All Blacks:
Jerry Collins: 1.91m, 108kg (6'3", 238 pounds)
Norm Hewett: 1.91m, 116kg (6'3", 256 pounds)
Chris Jack: 2.02m, 115kg (6'8", 254 pounds)
Simon Maling: 1.97m, 110kg (6'5", 242 pounds)
Richie McCaw: 1.88m, 105kg (6'2", 232 pounds)
Keith Robinson: 1.98m, 115kg (6'6", 254 pounds)
Alex Williams: 2.02m, 112kg (6'8", 247 pounds)
Brad Thorn: 1.95m, 113kg (6'5", 249 pounds)
Jonno Gibbes: 1.94m, 112kg (6'4", 247 pounds)
Mose Tuiali’i: 1.95m, 108kg (6'5", 238 pounds)
Derren Witcombe: 1.85m, 108kg (6'1", 238 pounds)
Jason Eaton: 2.02m, 107kg (6'8", 236 pounds)

And here's some South Africans:

Wessel Roux: 1.83m, 120kg (6', 265 pounds)
Kobus van der Walt: 1.80m, 110kg (5'10", 242pounds)
Francois van Schouwenburg: 1.97m, 118kg (6'5", 260 pounds)
Pedrie Wannenburg: 1.95m, 112kg (6'5", 247 pounds)
Darron Nell: 1.91m, 109kg (6'3", 240 pounds)
Johannes Theron: 2.00m, 116kg (6'7", 256 pounds)
Jannie Du Plessies: 1.88m, 119kg (6'2", 262 pounds)
Os Du Randt: 1.90m, 125kg (6'3", 276pounds)
Rory Duncan: 1.94m, 123kg (6'4", 271 pounds)
Attie Winter: 1.76m, 114kg (5'9", 251 pounds)
Wian Du Preez: 1.85m, 120kg (6'1", 265 pounds)
Ollie Le Roux: 1.83m, 128kg (6', 282 pounds)
Trevor Leota: 1.72m, 125kg (5'8", 276 pounds)

I converted to the nearest inch, cause I couldn't be bothered doing 1/2's. And that's all I feel like doing. You want more, you can look them up yourself!


Just a buncha of skinny-ass pansies, aren't they?

To be honest I'm probably biased by the rubbish freeview highlights that you get in the UK, but short of forking out huge wads of cash for sky, Channel 5's rubbish is the best available and isn't remotely watchable (hence why I rarely do).

For the rugby lovers out there: what's the difference between rugby union and rugby league?
Proctologists only play league.
http://wesclark.com/rrr/hopoate.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_league

Those'll help you.
Ah, should've thought of that myself. :p Thanks!

Rugby Union all. the. way. It's wonderful to watch and just as great to play, although I can no longer play it being a skinny little wuss. :D

Proctologists only play league.
http://wesclark.com/rrr/hopoate.html

Caus he's an Aussie...;)

If you did that round the M62 corridor you'd be hunted with pitch forks and burning torches...

Rugby Union all. the. way. It's wonderful to watch and just as great to play, although I can no longer play it being a skinny little wuss. :D

Hey, i'm skinny and not that inclined to be battered, but I've played union as a flanker :D

I.e. the sensible ones who score the tries and make the rest look slow.

Caus he's an Aussie...;)

If you did that round the M62 corridor you'd be hunted with pitch forks and burning torches...
To be fair, we M62ers do that for fun anyway. SQUEAL PIGGY, SQUEAL!

Also, I was a winger.

To be fair, we M62ers do that for fun anyway. SQUEAL PIGGY, SQUEAL!

Also, I was a winger.

We do...esp. to wierd people like those from Barnsley.

Another winger...excellent.

That said I switched to League when I could because I wasn't too keen on being at the bottom of an ruck every time I was caught. Two men is plenty enough to complete a tackle thanks...

We do...esp. to wierd people like those from Barnsley.

Another winger...excellent.

centres are better:p

Granted I am American, but rugby takes this hands down. Only girlie men wear pads. Rugby is like football(american) but with more speed, way more action, and harder hits without the protection. Long live rugby. That said football(soccer) beats them both.

Well, if it's stats you want:
A few of the current All Blacks:
Jerry Collins: 1.91m, 108kg (6'3", 238 pounds)
Norm Hewett: 1.91m, 116kg (6'3", 256 pounds)
Chris Jack: 2.02m, 115kg (6'8", 254 pounds)
Simon Maling: 1.97m, 110kg (6'5", 242 pounds)
Richie McCaw: 1.88m, 105kg (6'2", 232 pounds)
Keith Robinson: 1.98m, 115kg (6'6", 254 pounds)
Alex Williams: 2.02m, 112kg (6'8", 247 pounds)
Brad Thorn: 1.95m, 113kg (6'5", 249 pounds)
Jonno Gibbes: 1.94m, 112kg (6'4", 247 pounds)
Mose Tuiali’i: 1.95m, 108kg (6'5", 238 pounds)
Derren Witcombe: 1.85m, 108kg (6'1", 238 pounds)
Jason Eaton: 2.02m, 107kg (6'8", 236 pounds)

And here's some South Africans:

Wessel Roux: 1.83m, 120kg (6', 265 pounds)
Kobus van der Walt: 1.80m, 110kg (5'10", 242pounds)
Francois van Schouwenburg: 1.97m, 118kg (6'5", 260 pounds)
Pedrie Wannenburg: 1.95m, 112kg (6'5", 247 pounds)
Darron Nell: 1.91m, 109kg (6'3", 240 pounds)
Johannes Theron: 2.00m, 116kg (6'7", 256 pounds)
Jannie Du Plessies: 1.88m, 119kg (6'2", 262 pounds)
Os Du Randt: 1.90m, 125kg (6'3", 276pounds)
Rory Duncan: 1.94m, 123kg (6'4", 271 pounds)
Attie Winter: 1.76m, 114kg (5'9", 251 pounds)
Wian Du Preez: 1.85m, 120kg (6'1", 265 pounds)
Ollie Le Roux: 1.83m, 128kg (6', 282 pounds)
Trevor Leota: 1.72m, 125kg (5'8", 276 pounds)

I converted to the nearest inch, cause I couldn't be bothered doing 1/2's. And that's all I feel like doing. You want more, you can look them up yourself!


Just a buncha of skinny-ass pansies, aren't they?
those guys would kill american football players any day of the week

centres are better:p

And also have a shorter life expentency :p

American Football kicks rugby's ass:sniper: :sniper:

Granted I am American, but rugby takes this hands down. Only girlie men wear pads. Rugby is like football(american) but with more speed, way more action, and harder hits without the protection. Long live rugby. That said football(soccer) beats them both.
have you even played American Football in a league?

also... didn't an american invent rugby ;)

And also have a shorter life expentency :p
but have more fun:p


*wonders how long he can keep positional one-upmanship one liners followed by : p smileys going*

have you even played American Football in a league?

also... didn't an american invent rugby ;)
in a word, no.

also... didn't an american invent rugby ;)
Ahh..no. The sport of rugby began in 1823 at Rugby School in Rugby,England, where a boy (William Webb Ellis - hence the Webb Ellis trophy) playing football (soccer) decided to pick up the ball and run with it.
This being England, with an english player in an english team and an english ref controlling the game, the boy's apparent illegal move was overlooked and accepted as part of the game.
And that's how rugby started.

Ahh..no. The sport of rugby began in 1823 at Rugby School in Rugby,England, where a boy (William Webb Ellis - hence the Webb Ellis trophy) playing football (soccer) decided to pick up the ball and run with it.
This being England, with an english player in an english team and an english ref controlling the game, the boy's apparent illegal move was overlooked and accepted as part of the game.
And that's how rugby started.
And the English, with their great sense of tradition, have continued cheating ever since:p

have you even played American Football in a league?

also... didn't an american invent rugby ;)
Im born and bred in America so of course Ive played in an American Football league.Not as fun as rugby, or soccer.

And no, an American didnt invent rugby

those guys would kill american football players any day of the week
Especially Collins. Have you seen the size of that guy's arms and shoulders?
http://images.supersport.co.za/CollinsJerry031102RunswithBallGbg.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/graphics/2005/11/21/srengl21getty2.jpg
You do want to be tackled by him either. Most come off second-best.

Ahh..no. The sport of rugby began in 1823 at Rugby School in Rugby,England, where a boy (William Webb Ellis - hence the Webb Ellis trophy) playing football (soccer) decided to pick up the ball and run with it.
This being England, with an english player in an english team and an english ref controlling the game, the boy's apparent illegal move was overlooked and accepted as part of the game.
And that's how rugby started.

The story of William Webb Ellis appears to be no more than anecdote.
Rugby shares common origins with Association Football, but there is no one specific event which defines the origin of the code. For details of the history see this (http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/originsofrugby.htm)page

The story of William Webb Ellis appears to be no more than anecdote.
Rugby shares common origins with Association Football, but there is no one specific event which defines the origin of the code. For details of the history see this (http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/originsofrugby.htm)page
Whoosh!
What was that noise?
Why, the sound of humour flying way over your head.

but have more fun:p


*wonders how long he can keep positional one-upmanship one liners followed by : p smileys going*


By being flattened under a ruck? :p

Ahh..no. The sport of rugby began in 1823 at Rugby School in Rugby,England, where a boy (William Webb Ellis - hence the Webb Ellis trophy) playing football (soccer) decided to pick up the ball and run with it.
This being England, with an english player in an english team and an english ref controlling the game, the boy's apparent illegal move was overlooked and accepted as part of the game.
And that's how rugby started.


Furthermore, the rugby game, despite the myths, was not invented by school boy William Webb Ellis. The catalyst for rugby invention occurred when the traditional Maori ball games (that utilised running with ball in hand skills) - were much admired by the first European 'intelligentsia' to NZ in the early 1800s, and always ones to seize on innovative concepts, they surreptitiously introduced these dynamic handling and running with the ball skills into their 'upper crust' public schools back in Britain.

http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/Who_invented_the_game_of_football

Ahh..no. The sport of rugby began in 1823 at Rugby School in Rugby,England, where a boy (William Webb Ellis - hence the Webb Ellis trophy) playing football (soccer) decided to pick up the ball and run with it.
This being England, with an english player in an english team and an english ref controlling the game, the boy's apparent illegal move was overlooked and accepted as part of the game.
And that's how rugby started.

A good story, although curiously no-one remembered it until the late 1890s.

There are a couple of holes, that he 'cheated' and no one minded for a start. More importantly, there were no major forms of football in the 1820's that would have prohibitied handling.

Each school had its own form of football and they did not form into two general groups until the mid nineteenth century.

Whoosh!
What was that noise?
Why, the sound of humour flying way over your head.
it didn't look like your post had the intent of humor :P

Furthermore, the rugby game, despite the myths, was not invented by school boy William Webb Ellis. The catalyst for rugby invention occurred when the traditional Maori ball games (that utilised running with ball in hand skills) - were much admired by the first European 'intelligentsia' to NZ in the early 1800s, and always ones to seize on innovative concepts, they surreptitiously introduced these dynamic handling and running with the ball skills into their 'upper crust' public schools back in Britain.

http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/Who_invented_the_game_of_football

Again, nonsense.

The idea that handling the ball had not occured to anyone until pointed out is clearly a non starter. Initially football would have been so crowded and violent that hanging onto the ball would not have been advisable. The way to move the ball forward was to push teh other team back or kick it however far. Handling was never banned.

Even the the FA (soccer) did not initially prohibit catching the ball.

At the time, all public schools had their own versions of rugby, so it was them who considered it "cheating" but since each school's rules had equal validity they couldn't do anything about it.

If you want to go back to the roots of it, you look to "foot-balle" that dates at least back to the 16th century, and was as close to rugby, as it was to modern football. Or you look at certain traditional Celtic games that WWE's father is known to have seen (and I think written about in his diary) and the possibility that he told his son about them and that the son took the idea from there. So it's almost certainly a British game, with multiple possible sources.

Rugby is by far the better game.
I just find American Football too boring with too many breaks...rugby is just faster paced action,and more of it as well.
I'm a prop,so don't tell me that we're a bunch of sissy skinny pansies that would get killed by American Football players.
We know how to tackle.

I'd prefer rugby, it allow more flair and it's more technical and complex than RL and AF.
As for hits...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZi_5jIa8xk

NASTY

We know how to tackle.
Shame you're never there fast enough to actually do it:p

Shame you're never there fast enough to actually do it:p

Is that an attack on the front row brotherhood?

Wait until the next time you need the forwards to bail you out, you'll regret this slur then.

(Speaking as an ex prop who ran a sub 11 second 100 meters.)

Is that an attack on the front row brotherhood?

Wait until the next time you need the forwards to bail you out, you'll regret this slur then.

(Speaking as an ex prop who ran a sub 11 second 100 meters.)
pfsh, the entire front row brotherhood is short, fat, missing teeth, braincells, and holding three pints of beer in each hand (or is that just my coaches?;) )

As an American who has very little access to any kind of rugby, of course I like American football better, but from what I have seen, they are two very different games. I think I could get into rugby, but I don't think I'll ever like it more than A.F., just cause I was brought up die-hard fan of the New York Jets (the team who took Australian rule football star Ben Graham).
As for toughness, there were close to thirty deaths in pre-pad American football in one year, which is why they needed pads. And the video looked like a pretty normal hit for an American football play, except for the medical attention.

There is so little interest in Rugby here in Melbourne, it's heaps bigger in most of the other states. Which is a shame, but it does mean that when I play for school I'm one of the best... big, not particularly fast, but one of the smartest players you'll find. Go the forward line! Usually Tight-head.

Me being a New Zealander, what do you think I'm gonna say? American Football kicks teh ass, and rugby is for skinny white sissy boys? Don't think so!

In my opinion, Rugby rules, but the way rugby is played in the northern hemisphere is quite different than how we play down here at the ass end of the world. Harder, faster, bigger (but not compared to those welsh props).
I mean you get bigger hits in NFL but your wearing pads, so its sorta legal to pull out the big hits.

Rugby rules. More action, more strategy, more skill, and besides real men don't wear pads.

That said, Australian Rules football is better than both of these sports. :)

American Football is for pansies! All that padding, clunky helmets, tight pants (:fluffle: queer anyone?) I agree, RUGBY IS FOR REAL MEN!

As for toughness, there were close to thirty deaths in pre-pad American football in one year, which is why they needed pads.

Ohhh, pooor babies! can't handle a real hit? American Football is for sissies.

Rugby all the way, thats how i screwed my legs :D

Rugby is for real men. As for American Football, English football is a much more dangerous sport, and is harder as well.

Seriously, American football could be played with pretty much just oxen and dogs- oxen for the linebackers, and dogs for receivers. I don't know what you'd use for a quarterback (hell, why not a spud gun?), but yeah.

rugby
i live in australia so yeah, of course!
fast, exciting game, and plenty of big hits
pity we dont get super 14 on free-to-air, though

but i've seen at least three games of american football, and the thing that struck me was the amount of TIME it takes. 30 seconds of play, 2 minutes of guy in red shirt standing on field warning people ads are on. repeat ad infinitum
but american football is a great game, nonetheless, and the footy fever over there is INSANE, just rips right through you. i saw army vs uconn at westpoint - hot cadets everywhere, parachuters, did a tailgate, all that, best fun ever

Loose head prop. Think we cud start a nationstates team :-p.

Not watched much American Football, but i do prefer rugby + its more fun and easyer to play.
And play Union, only use league in training (not to say Unions better just that never had a proper game on league)

what, no poll?

i prefer rugby

but to take an arguments on padding

they wear them because they are allowed to do unheld tackles, they can take people out without having to follow them to the floor

As an American who has very little access to any kind of rugby, of course I like American football better, but from what I have seen, they are two very different games. I think I could get into rugby, but I don't think I'll ever like it more than A.F., just cause I was brought up die-hard fan of the New York Jets (the team who took Australian rule football star Ben Graham).
As for toughness, there were close to thirty deaths in pre-pad American football in one year, which is why they needed pads. And the video looked like a pretty normal hit for an American football play, except for the medical attention.
There have been deaths in rugby as well, but not usually on the big stage since the deaths usually came to front row players with broken necks, and the ones good enough to be known had to have decent scrummagine technique, whereas a lot of unknown club props didn't and some paid for it:(

You have a lot of paralized people in rugby, but very few deaths. there have been over 100 broken necks in Ru in England this year alone.

A pissing contest to see which sport destroys most lives is not very helpful in deciding which is the better sport, is it?

Pads are worn in American football, and padding is starting to appear in Rugby as well. (Jerseys now have padded shoulders in them, they didn't when I played). Anything that helps reduce the number of injuries in either sport is good. (Get rid of astroturf huh, US)

The reason why I switched to american football from rugby is that I cracked a vertebra in my neck. Neck rolls and a helmet enabled me to continue playing a contact sport, when I could no longer risk playing rugby. (Then I got my knee destroyed by a clip block on astroturf.)

A pissing contest to see which sport destroys most lives is not very helpful in deciding which is the better sport, is it?

Pads are worn in American football, and padding is starting to appear in Rugby as well. (Jerseys now have padded shoulders in them, they didn't when I played). Anything that helps reduce the number of injuries in either sport is good. (Get rid of astroturf huh, US)

The reason why I switched to american football from rugby is that I cracked a vertebra in my neck. Neck rolls and a helmet enabled me to continue playing a contact sport, when I could no longer risk playing rugby. (Then I got my knee destroyed by a clip block on astroturf.)

Astroturf is pure evil. Sure, it's a surface that can be used for dome stadiums, but it's a very archaic technology now. It's hard, it's slick, and it's painful when you fall on it (hello, elbow cuts!).

A pissing contest to see which sport destroys most lives is not very helpful in deciding which is the better sport, is it?

Pads are worn in American football, and padding is starting to appear in Rugby as well. (Jerseys now have padded shoulders in them, they didn't when I played). Anything that helps reduce the number of injuries in either sport is good. (Get rid of astroturf huh, US)

The reason why I switched to american football from rugby is that I cracked a vertebra in my neck. Neck rolls and a helmet enabled me to continue playing a contact sport, when I could no longer risk playing rugby. (Then I got my knee destroyed by a clip block on astroturf.)
Actually the RFU have passed laws outlawing certain types of pads and too much padding.