WZCW Discussion Thread | Page 2127 | WrestleZone Forums

WZCW Discussion Thread

Барбоса;4514395 said:
The thing I hate about southern hemisphere rugby union is that it is starting to look too much like rugby league.

That was no more obvious than during the First Test between the Lions and Wallabies.

Isn't Footie supposed to be like American Football, except not for *****es?
 
Isn't Footie supposed to be like American Football, except not for *****es?

Australian Rules Football is a pretty rough sport indeed. Not sure it quite comes up to the levels of Rugby Union but it certainly has as much if not more reason to wear the pads and helmets of American Football as far more fast-paced with big hits. And a lot of kicking of the ball.
 
Isn't Footie supposed to be like American Football, except not for *****es?

I despise the notion that because American Football players wear pads they are somehow less brave than rugby players or Australian Rule football players. As far as I'm concerned your quote should read like this.

Isn't Footie supposed to be like American Football, except for idiots?

They don't wear pads because they're scared for their lives: they wear pads because if they didn't there would be horrible, horrible injuries. I don't know at what point in time valuing your body and your life became something only a "pussy" would do, but the whole notion is absolutely ridiculous.
 
Australian Rules is a fairly intense sport - I heard something floating around that the average AFL player runs roughly 10km's per game. You don't see any massive players on their teams like you would with Rugby due to this ridiculous amount of running.

As far as padding is concerned - us Australians love a good fight and some rough tackles, something padding doesn't really allow to facilitate to its maximum potential... so asking us a question about padding will result in most of us saying that they NFL players are *****es for wearing it. Then again, our forms of entertainment over here are quite dull so anything involving drama (i.e. bitching, gossip, etc.) and fighting gets the majority going. It's why every TV show that fills a prime-time slot down under is all reality TV shows and nothing else.

I could rant for a lot longer but I need sleep.
 
Quick question; could someone tell me the average size of a rugby player?

There is a point coming to this
 
Aye; so fair to say they don't look like this?

patrick-willis-workout-1234_display_image.jpg
 
I despise the notion that because American Football players wear pads they are somehow less brave than rugby players or Australian Rule football players. As far as I'm concerned your quote should read like this.

They don't wear pads because they're scared for their lives: they wear pads because if they didn't there would be horrible, horrible injuries. I don't know at what point in time valuing your body and your life became something only a "pussy" would do, but the whole notion is absolutely ridiculous.

Seems like I hit a sore spot. I don't watch football, so it's holds no importance to me. But that's pretty much the reaction I have when people tell me that racing isn't a sport, or isn't dangerous.
 
Difficult to say what size the average rugby player is given the different shapes and sizes required for different positions. Some are under 6ft tall, some are nearly 7ft. Some are 13stone others are 20

The idea that rugby players are fat is incorrect, especially now in the professional era
 
Барбоса;4514623 said:
Difficult to say what size the average rugby player is given the different shapes and sizes required for different positions.

The idea that rugby players are fat is incorrect, especially now in the professional era

I wouldn't doubt that, but take a look at the image I provided.

Is it fair to say rugby players don't look like that?
 
I despise the notion that because American Football players wear pads they are somehow less brave than rugby players or Australian Rule football players. As far as I'm concerned your quote should read like this.



They don't wear pads because they're scared for their lives: they wear pads because if they didn't there would be horrible, horrible injuries. I don't know at what point in time valuing your body and your life became something only a "pussy" would do, but the whole notion is absolutely ridiculous.

I know the point you are making but maybe they should just teach their guys to show restraint y'know. Also they clearly don't care about their bodies or they wouldn't go throwing themselves at other guys heads and necks.

American Footballers need armour because a lot of professional players are apparently too stupid to realise that slamming their shoulder into someone's neck could do serious injury. In rugby tackling above the waist is not possible.
 
I despise the notion that because American Football players wear pads they are somehow less brave than rugby players or Australian Rule football players. As far as I'm concerned your quote should read like this.



They don't wear pads because they're scared for their lives: they wear pads because if they didn't there would be horrible, horrible injuries. I don't know at what point in time valuing your body and your life became something only a "pussy" would do, but the whole notion is absolutely ridiculous.

Барбоса;4514623 said:
Difficult to say what size the average rugby player is given the different shapes and sizes required for different positions. Some are under 6ft tall, some are nearly 7ft. Some are 13stone others are 20

The idea that rugby players are fat is incorrect, especially now in the professional era

I wouldn't doubt that, but take a look at the image I provided.

Is it fair to say rugby players don't look like that?

Барбоса;4514633 said:
Actually, I would say that that would be a rather fair estimate of what quite a lot of modern rugby players look like.

The forwards tend to be a bit tubby simply because having that extra weight is beneficial for them. They are far from out of shape though. The other 10 players on the field are usually in fantastic shape.
 
The forwards tend to be a bit tubby simply because having that extra weight is beneficial for them. They are far from out of shape though. The other 10 players on the field are usually in fantastic shape.

If anything there are only two players on a rugby pitch that might look out of shape and that is the two props. But even then, whilst many look "tubby", they are more often than not mountains of muscle. Think Lou Thesz type body shape.

The rest of the forward pack are usually massive men who are not just strong but also cardio-machines. Think men the shape and size of the Rock running almost non-stop for 80 mins.
 
I don't mind the concept that rugby players and American football players are equivalent in terms of athletic prowess.

What does seem a little short sighted is, with what we know about head injuries, that American football players are any less tough than rugby players. What Shotaro said about discipline is fair, but I place that more upon a media that revels in the "big hit", something I'm pretty sure could be found in all cultures.
 
I don't mind the concept that rugby players and American football players are equivalent in terms of athletic prowess.

What does seem a little short sighted is, with what we know about head injuries, that American football players are any less tough than rugby players. What Shotaro said about discipline is fair, but I place that more upon a media that revels in the "big hit", something I'm pretty sure could be found in all cultures.

I would agree if if weren't for the fact that American Football is pretty much just in America where as Rugby is an international game. Tell me when was the last World Cup of Armoured Handegg?

Also you are quite right Barbs, Props are often the biggest men on the field, I never meant to question their fitness as like you said they are 18 stone marathon runners essentially.
 
Personally, I think it is rather unfair to both to compare rugby players to American football players in terms of athletic prowess as they essentially play two sports that, while on the surface seem somewhat similar are actually extremely different, even at the most basic physical level.

Rugby is largely a physical aerobic sport with bursts of anaerobic activity whilst the stop start nature of American football makes it far more anaerobic.
 
Барбоса;4514671 said:
Personally, I think it is rather unfair to both to compare rugby players to American football players in terms of athletic prowess as they essentially play two sports that, while on the surface seem somewhat similar are actually extremely different, even at the most basic physical level.

Rugby is largely a physical aerobic sport with bursts of anaerobic activity whilst the stop start nature of American football makes it far more anaerobic.

To be far less scientific, American Football is a game of strength whilst Rugby is a balance between strength and fitness. I always sucked at biology so I'm asking if this is what you just said.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top