The Super Bowl

[dickythorpe]

Think you've got the sports mixed up there. Whenever they've tried testing them, NFL players have destroyed rugby players.

Tested them how?

They test them all the time mun

 

[dickythorpe]

On average, rugby union players cover around 6 miles per game.

On average, American football players only run around 1 mile per game and they only actually played for an average of 11 minutes whilst rugby players play for a full 80 minutes.

That’s a HUGE difference.

Rugby players run more, hit more and have to be mentally switched on for 69 more minutes than American Football players.

Rugby players don’t have the luxury of being able to stop the play each breakdown, they must get back up, get back in line, make that last-ditch tackle, cover that kick over the top etc.

It’s a whole different game when you have to combine strength, speed, power and stamina. This is why Rugby wins this section by far

 

[dickythorpe]

https://rugbywarfare.com/rugby-vs-american-football/

 

[JackSomething]

Think you've got the sports mixed up there. Whenever they've tried testing them, NFL players have destroyed rugby players.

Tested them how?

They've measured their speed, how hard they hit, how much ground they cover in a game, that kind of stuff.

They've also had matches where the same players have played American Football against each other and rugby against each other, although given how much more complicated American Football is, I don't know if that proves much.

 

[Darran]

Tested them how?

They've measured their speed, how hard they hit, how much ground they cover in a game, that kind of stuff.

They've also had matches where the same players have played American Football against each other and rugby against each other, although given how much more complicated American Football is, I don't know if that proves much.

Don’t argue with Neathie he’s always wrong. :lol:

 

[JackSomething]

https://rugbywarfare.com/rugby-vs-american-football/

Jesus, a quick skim of that study shows how embarrassing it is, even accepting that coming from a rugby website it's going to be obviously biased. Even then they can only declare it a draw! :lol: It's the kind of study that AFD would be citing.

Why they're comparing college players (amateurs, many still in their teens) to professional union and league players, I don't know. Oh wait, I do know, it's because they'd have to declare NFL players the winner in that category if they did it properly.

I will give the nod to rugby players on how they have to play continually for 40 minutes, while the stop start nature of the NFL, combined with different sets of players playing offence and defence, means they get far more breaks than rugby players. The need to stay switched on constantly is an area where the rugby players have it harder. So rugby takes it on endurance. Of course the game is far simpler and they have far less to think about than an NFL player, but that's mental stress rather than physical stress.

People aren't going to shift their opinion on this, especially when their knowledge of one of the sports is extremely limited, so probably best to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[JackSomething]

Its top player is 43 ffs

Joke of a sport , the pussies wear crash helmets too

Here's a good example. Two sentences which show a vast lack of understanding of the sport.

Tom Brady is a freak of nature, do some reading up on how he looks after himself and you'll see he's an exception rather than the norm. Plus he plays in a position that takes the fewest hits (outside of kickers and punters).

As for the crash helmet line, 5 minutes research will show you what happens to players' brains with the hits they absorb, even when wearing those helmets.

 

[Neath_Jack]

Tested them how?

They've measured their speed, how hard they hit, how much ground they cover in a game, that kind of stuff.

They've also had matches where the same players have played American Football against each other and rugby against each other, although given how much more complicated American Football is, I don't know if that proves much.

Have you got examples of elite rugby sides and American players in the scenarios you claim in this post? Specifically the matches. I'd like to have a look at those games.

 

[JackSomething]

They've measured their speed, how hard they hit, how much ground they cover in a game, that kind of stuff.

They've also had matches where the same players have played American Football against each other and rugby against each other, although given how much more complicated American Football is, I don't know if that proves much.

Have you got examples of elite rugby sides and American players in the scenarios you claim in this post? Specifically the matches. I'd like to have a look at those games.

I had a memory that the one I'm thinking of was amateurs from both sports rather than professionals. They both won at their own sport, but with the American football game being much less of a contest. I can't find anything online to corroborate that though, so maybe I'm making it up.

Either way, 'rugby, but for unfit ponces' is just plain wrong. The kind of thing a Hooray Henry Tory would say.

 

[Best_loser]

Its top player is 43 ffs

Joke of a sport , the pussies wear crash helmets too

Here's a good example. Two sentences which show a vast lack of understanding of the sport.

Tom Brady is a freak of nature, do some reading up on how he looks after himself and you'll see he's an exception rather than the norm. Plus he plays in a position that takes the fewest hits (outside of kickers and punters).

As for the crash helmet line, 5 minutes research will show you what happens to players' brains with the hits they absorb, even when wearing those helmets.

I was fishing, but as you mention it, do helmets make it more dangerous ?