Americans are wimps

[JasonEvans]

In our favorite sport, they wear pads and helmets. Rugby Players must laugh at us.

I'm still waiting to see an NFL team come to midfield before a game and perform a Haka. If they did this, the Falcons could beat the Patriots.

--Jason "plus, is there a cooler name in all of sports than the All Blacks?" Evans

[throatybeard]

--Jason "plus, is there a cooler name in all of sports than the All Blacks?" Evans

Arsenal.

[Shammrog]

The Americans, that is:

Rugby is indeed a tough sport. People do get hurt.

BUT, if you played NFL games without pads, you would (literally) need stretchers and body bags.

Another way to put it: put NFL and rugby players on a field (either sport) without pads. You would have a lot of maimed and possibly killed rugby players.

[Highlander]

The Americans, that is:

Rugby is indeed a tough sport. People do get hurt.

BUT, if you played NFL games without pads, you would (literally) need stretchers and body bags.

Another way to put it: put NFL and rugby players on a field (either sport) without pads. You would have a lot of maimed and possibly killed rugby players.

Put another way. Rugby is a contact sport. American Football is a collision sport.

[colchar]

Another way to put it: put NFL and rugby players on a field (either sport) without pads. You would have a lot of maimed and possibly killed rugby players.

No, it would be the football players who would get hurt. Rugby players are used to hitting without pads, football players are not. And football players wouldn't hit as hard as they do normally if they didn't have pads on while rugby players would still hit as hard as they always do.

[colchar]

In our favorite sport, they wear pads and helmets. Rugby Players must laugh at us.

Rugby players (and Footy players) do laugh at football players.

I've been saying for ages that football players are wimps compared to rugby and footy players. All my football loving friends insist that football is tougher but I just don't buy it. Football players are too used to playing with pads and probably couldn't handle playing without them.

[A-Tex Devil]

Rugby players (and Footy players) do laugh at football players.

I've been saying for ages that football players are wimps compared to rugby and footy players. All my football loving friends insist that football is tougher but I just don't buy it. Football players are too used to playing with pads and probably couldn't handle playing without them.

There is no denying rugby players are tough. But rugby players could not play American football without pads and last very long. American football has evolved so much (and I don't mean "beyond" rugby, just in its own vacuum) that it would be dangerous not to have pads.

I am guessing the forward pass is what ended up differentiating why one sport needs pads and the other doesn't. Rugby doesn't have the QB standing in one spot, easily speared from the blindside, or the receiver coming across the middle - both which lead to hits that without pads could be deadly. Also, isn't it illegal to downfield block in rugby? That's another place you see some pretty awful collisions away from the ball. Then there's also the kickoffs in pro football.

I'm not taking anything away from rugby, but the sports are different, and if you didn't have pads in American football, it wouldn't exist today.

Someone put it better than me already, but Rugby is like a (very) organized gang brawl. American football is a series of 100 car crashes over 60 minutes. They're just different. Let's put it this way -- is there an epdemic of rugby veterans in the Commonwealth with post-concussion syndrome leading to to early senility like there is in the NFL? Again, there's a reason there are pads, and it's not related to "toughness."

Just to get everyone's dander up more, I'll grant that Rugby players have more endurance, but the bigger, stronger, faster players are in the NFL. Not many olympic caliber sprinters and field event participants in rugby that I've seen.

[JasonEvans]

Arsenal.

In the pantheon of really cool names, this is waay up there.

[Shammrog]

No, it would be the football players who would get hurt. Rugby players are used to hitting without pads, football players are not. And football players wouldn't hit as hard as they do normally if they didn't have pads on while rugby players would still hit as hard as they always do.

Yes, but the football players are some of the biggest, fastest, and strongest men in the world. I have seen both sets of players. Rugby guys are athletic and tough, to be sure. But football players are freaks. A big guy in rugby might be, say, 6'1 220 lbs. A big guy in football is 6'6 330 lbs. A fast guy in rugby would be a 4.5 or 4.6 40. A fast guy in football is 4.2 or 4.3. A strong guy in rugby benches 350. A strong guy in football benches 550.

You can play rugby at the highest level without pads. Yes, it takes toughness and players do get hurt. If they tried the NFL without pads, injuries and worse would be non-stop; a bloodbath.

(I also bet there are a lot more drugs in football.)

[colchar]

Let's put it this way -- is there an epdemic of rugby veterans in the Commonwealth with post-concussion syndrome leading to to early senility like there is in the NFL? Again, there's a reason there are pads, and it's not related to "toughness."

Yes, from my experience post-concussion syndrome continues to be an issue for rugby players. I have a couple of friends whose careers have been ended because of concussions and another who stupidly continues to play despite numerous concussions.

[colchar]

Yes, but the football players are some of the biggest, fastest, and strongest men in the world. I have seen both sets of players. Rugby guys are athletic and tough, to be sure. But football players are freaks. A big guy in rugby might be, say, 6'1 220 lbs. A big guy in football is 6'6 330 lbs. A fast guy in rugby would be a 4.5 or 4.6 40. A fast guy in football is 4.2 or 4.3. A strong guy in rugby benches 350. A strong guy in football benches 550.

I've never been entirely sold on the times listed for football players running the 40. A professor at the University of Western Ontario published a paper a few years ago (I wish I could remember his name/find the paper) in which he argued that, if players really are running at the speeds claimed, they are routinely running faster than Olympic calibre sprinters running their career-best times. I refuse to believe that some 6'5" 360lb player is routinely running faster than Carl Lewis.

[Shammrog]

I've never been entirely sold on the times listed for football players running the 40. A professor at the University of Western Ontario published a paper a few years ago (I wish I could remember his name/find the paper) in which he argued that, if players really are running at the speeds claimed, they are routinely running faster than Olympic calibre sprinters running their career-best times. I refuse to believe that some 6'5" 360lb player is routinely running faster than Carl Lewis.

It isn't the 6'5" 360 guys running that (!); although most are amazingly fast for their size.

I think the 40 times are a lot more legit now that the combine is open and on TV. It would take a lot of work to rig that.

The Olympic sprints are 100 and 200 meter (about 110 and 220 yards.) (Note: I used to be a sprinter back in the day...) I read somewhere that the optimal speed distance for overall average time is about 60 yards. So players running ultra-fast 40s can be faster over the shorter distance, just not over the Olympic race distances - you can't prorate a 40 time to 110 or 220 yards.

[colchar]

It isn't the 6'5" 360 guys running that (!); although most are amazingly fast for their size.

I think the 40 times are a lot more legit now that the combine is open and on TV. It would take a lot of work to rig that.

The Olympic sprints are 100 and 200 meter (about 110 and 220 yards.) (Note: I used to be a sprinter back in the day...) I read somewhere that the optimal speed distance for overall average time is about 60 yards. So players running ultra-fast 40s can be faster over the shorter distance, just not over the Olympic race distances - you can't prorate a 40 time to 110 or 220 yards.

I think looking at the time for the 60 in T&F might be more accurate and, even then, the claims are that football players are as fast as the best sprinters in the world which I just do not buy. Also, there are problems with the way the 40 is timed (hand-timing, etc.). And why do none of the players who had great times in the 40, and who end up in the CFL, end up running rings around players up here (all CFL players, because of the nature of the game, have to be able to run)?

[Shammrog]

I think looking at the time for the 60 in T&F might be more accurate and, even then, the claims are that football players are as fast as the best sprinters in the world which I just do not buy. Also, there are problems with the way the 40 is timed (hand-timing, etc.). And why do none of the players who had great times in the 40, and who end up in the CFL, end up running rings around players up here (all CFL players, because of the nature of the game, have to be able to run)?

All that may well be true - but I don't think there is much doubt that the speed players in the NFL are a lot faster than the ones in rugby. And CFL players are usually guys with good speed who for other reasons (often, size) don't make it in the NFL. Don't a huge percentage of CFL players come from football programs down here anyway?

[hc5duke]

If they did this, the Falcons could beat the Patriots.

When performed by a team mostly comprised of... um, pigment-challenged players, this just looks silly.

[colchar]

When performed by a team mostly comprised of... um, pigment-challenged players, this just looks silly.

I've got a buddy who is Moari (has the real tribal tats on his face. etc.) and who can do the entire thing. It is really cool to watch...especially when drunk.

[colchar]

All that may well be true - but I don't think there is much doubt that the speed players in the NFL are a lot faster than the ones in rugby. And CFL players are usually guys with good speed who for other reasons (often, size) don't make it in the NFL. Don't a huge percentage of CFL players come from football programs down here anyway?

A large portion do but there are also a set number of Canadian players per team. I have to admit that I rarely watch the NFL. I just don't like it much and have no particular interest in any team except for, maybe, Detroit as I lived in Windsor Ont. for a few years. But who the heck is gonna cheer for the Lions?

I love the CFL however as I find it a more exciting game (bigger field+fewer downs=waaay more passing and usually higher scoring games...heck, a 10 point lead with 2 minutes to play might as well be a tied game). I will watch college ball though (in addition to Canadian University football) and rather enjoy it (there usually isn't anything else to watch on a Saturday afternoon). I'm not particularly invested in any particular team though. I would follow Duke like I do in basketball if it weren't for the fact that...

[Shammrog]

A large portion do but there are also a set number of Canadian players per team. I have to admit that I rarely watch the NFL. I just don't like it much and have no particular interest in any team except for, maybe, Detroit as I lived in Windsor Ont. for a few years. But who the heck is gonna cheer for the Lions?

I love the CFL however as I find it a more exciting game (bigger field+fewer downs=waaay more passing and usually higher scoring games...heck, a 10 point lead with 2 minutes to play might as well be a tied game). I will watch college ball though (in addition to Canadian University football) and rather enjoy it (there usually isn't anything else to watch on a Saturday afternoon). I'm not particularly invested in any particular team though. I would follow Duke like I do in basketball if it weren't for the fact that...

The CFL is indeed a lot of fun to watch; we don't get much of it on TV in the states.

Did you remember I am from Detroit (grew up there). You are right about the Lions. (And, Duke. )

I don't know how an NFL team can suck so much for so long. I think it comes down to the sage "ownership" of William Clay Ford.

[colchar]

The CFL is indeed a lot of fun to watch; we don't get much of it on TV in the states.

Did you remember I am from Detroit (grew up there). You are right about the Lions. (And, Duke. )

I don't know how an NFL team can suck so much for so long. I think it comes down to the sage "ownership" of William Clay Ford.

No, I hadn't remembered that you are from Detroit. You have my sympathies. Sincerely.

So who do you cheer for in the NFL? Or are you a true Lions fan who is still holding on despite everything that has gone on there over the years?

[Lavabe]

Put another way. Rugby is a contact sport. American Football is a collision sport.

Australian Rules Football!!

Cheers,
Lavabe