Thread: Some awesome Rugby Hits

Originally Posted by armbar228

^
I agree with you.

I love both sports. But its just like comparing an apple to an orange. They look similar but in detail are a world of difference.

@Bignmz: What position did you play for rugby?

Originally Posted by Germany

Haha, dident know that this is such a discussion.

I think both sports can not be compared to each other when it comes to the players, since on football you have your 2 teams, offense and defense that are somehwhat specialised, whilst in rugby one set of people have to play offense and defense. So both are trained in a completly different way in my opinion. In rugby you need very much cardio, because you keep running back and forth all the time, compared to football where its a play and then stop.

Look at a 7s game of Rugby......No football player could ever do that with the normal football training.

We could keep going all day comparing a fat linebacker against a rugby winger or Running back with a slower rugby forward, but at the end we are still talking about two different sports with 2 different types of athletes.....

I would not call them fat.
most linebackers in college and in the nfl are within single digit percentage of bodyfat. please show large rugby players that are that lean...even jonah is and wasnt ever that lean. hell I am 290 and under 10 percent bodyfat..and i am not even close to the shape of most NFL players.

I think most of you guys are missing football conditioning...to say that we are not conditioned to run is misleading.

the muscle fibers, muscle memory accumulation, and skill set needed to play both sports are very similar so I believe they can be compared...besides, american football comes from rugby.

there have been a few guys who play both offense and defense in the NFL...a lot in college (including me) and all the studs in highschool....but that still doesnt matter....hitting is hitting...it can be done in offense as well.....most fullbacks and tightends hit harder than most defensive players.....and most stud players (offense and Defense) also play special teams...where they have to tackle...and run the length of the football field.

and about rugby 7s....you should look up 7 on 7 football.
(we used to play 7s rugby here...till more people got interested)

I do agree that rugby players are superior cardiovascularly...but thats not a definition of athletism to me...that more fitness.

Originally Posted by Germany

I love both sports. But its just like comparing an apple to an orange. They look similar but in detail are a world of difference.

@Bignmz: What position did you play for rugby?

we play union rules:
i play full or utility.

Originally Posted by armbar228

^^

I agree on your argument with respect to body composition ie pound for pound strength but while physics is based on actual numbers hits are graded on damage. You have surely been hit a few times by both faster small guys and slower big guys. Trees that move do more damage. The gentlemen you cited are on the bottom of my list of folks I'd like to get hit by whereas lighter athletes that may move faster and can potentially generate more kinetic energy would not be as bad.

With regard to METCON, I realize it is essentially based on "cardio capacity" but don't you think that overall cardio capacity is a precursor for being good at a team sport?

There was a show a while back that in an indirect way put our debate to the test. Dhani Tackles the Globe. If you saw the show and accept that Mr. Jones is a reasonable "average" NFL athlete, you saw that his athleticism definitely helped him in sports where raw power, overall strength etc. In sports that were more endurance based he faltered. I know he isn't a CB as in your original analogy but the outline still remains.

At the end of the day what type of non biased test do you think would be needed to determine the worlds best athlete? I'm talking overall ability here. Do you go with a decathlon? A crossfit workout? A street fight? Ninja Warrior obstacle course?

Modern sports pick and choose athletes based on how their particular set of attributes, whether physical or technical, stack up against other players. Those with better attributes for a particular sport or position tend to do better than those with less favorable attributes.

So how does one qualify the overall best athlete?

side note - it is refreshing to debate sports science with people with some perspective. Were you a Kin. major in college or did you just take a few classes? I was not. However after school I opened a personal training business and now run a gym and consult for MMA conditioning full time.

I wasnt a kin major (majored in social work) but i minored in it. I also worked as a personal trainer for a long time, married a npc fitness comp chick (will have her pro card soon) who also happens to be a certified clinical nutritionist. I got more into kino as I got into powerlifting and olymic lifting (i compete at a national level in both currently) it is also in the fam...my mom was a human performance researcher for nasa and was in charge of training every astronaut that has ever stepped foot on johnson space center....she also pioneered exercise methods in near zero gravity enviroments...there is a famous video floating around of her doing some weird situps in the vomit comet.

all those gentlemen i mentioned are pretty big and fast....they all run sub 4.5 fortys. which means they are just as fast as the smaller guys..
which means more kinetic energy (ek=1/2mass times velocity squared).....i try to avoid the big guys lol....thats why you see the lil cornerbacks bouncing of off the big backs.

I dont believe cardio is a precurser....you can always make your cardio better...but how much faster can you really get? how much hip speed can you really get? vertical? thats why i dont consider cardio an athletic ability.

I do agree with you on the Dahani jones point...but i think it also had a lot to do with his lack of muscle memory for that certain sport.

I do agree that modern sports pick and choose players that fit "the mold" but what i am arguing is that there are better overall athletes found in the NFL..simply because there is such a mix of size, strengh, speed, weight etc....but that also creates guys who are good at everthing.....take vernon davis as an example...if you can find someone who is that fast...at that size...and is that strong...please let me know...

in the end...i dont really think we can pick the best athlete because we all disagree on two main issues...skill sets vs natural athletism,..priority of constant workload over short bursts of extreme workload..

I will agree to disagree lol.

^^

Well put sir.

These guys are fuckin crazy