6 nations

**dec11** · 02-12-2011, 09:47 AM

whats your forecast for the championship this year?

**songdog** · 02-12-2011, 10:41 AM

its like the weather it will change many times.

**paulzane** · 02-13-2011, 09:49 AM

England all the way!

**tramar** · 02-13-2011, 10:23 AM

England should def win

Bit disappointed in Scotland against Wales yesterday, I bet on them to win that

**dec11** · 02-13-2011, 12:56 PM

jesus tht was a heart breaker today, i thought we had it on tht last surge

kidney should have had more fresh legs on the last 20mins

**alexISthrowed** · 02-13-2011, 01:04 PM

The superbowl is already over. Green Bay won.

**dec11** · 02-13-2011, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by alexISthrowed

The superbowl is already over. Green Bay won.

we are talking about a mans game in this thread lol

**alexISthrowed** · 02-13-2011, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by dec11

we are talking about a mans game in this thread lol

lol I'm not arguing with you there. Rugby has to be one of the roughest sports.

**dec11** · 02-13-2011, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by alexISthrowed

lol I'm not arguing with you there. Rugby has to be one of the roughest sports.

yeah, its hard hitting, fantastic to watch in full flow though

**BgMc31** · 02-13-2011, 04:14 PM

Please, let us not rehash a American Football vs. Rugby thread again...

But just in case you wanted too here's some video comparison:

Rugby:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3JDpsCTYBs

Football:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QED1UrfW5Y

And remember this. Football has bigger, stronger, faster men.

**dec11** · 02-13-2011, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Please, let us not rehash a American Football vs. Rugby thread again...

But just in case you wanted too here's some video comparison:

Rugby:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3JDpsCTYBs

Football:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QED1UrfW5Y

And remember this. Football has bigger, stronger, faster men.

we arent at all, its just a thread for those following the 6 nations. i wouldnt take tht statement as gospel though, alot of big strong rugby players around playing a more skillfull game. and bryan habana is as fast as any AF player (without gay padding)

oh forgot, what do they actually do in AF? start stop start stop etc etc etc = boring

**auslifta** · 02-13-2011, 05:48 PM

Who cares, the great nations are in the Southern Hemisphere

World Cup will be more interesting.

**dec11** · 02-13-2011, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by auslifta

Who cares, the great nations are in the Southern Hemisphere

World Cup will be more interesting.

i was waiting on one of you aussie bollix's to pipe up lol

**alexISthrowed** · 02-13-2011, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

And remember this. Football has bigger, stronger, faster men.

But rugby players dont wear any pads so I think it equals them out.

**stevey_6t9** · 02-13-2011, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

And remember this. Football has bigger, stronger, faster men.

yeh there bigger and stronger cos all they got to do is run fukin 10 metres and have a break between.

**number twelve** · 02-13-2011, 10:41 PM

i think it will be england vs france in the final. i have a feeling france will win, esp if it is at home

**BgMc31** · 02-13-2011, 11:24 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHA!! I just wanted to see you cats get bent out of shape. The reason why we wear pads is because we are bigger, stronger, and faster! LOL!!! Plus pads don't reduce injuries (studies showed this). They increase them. The mentality of a football player is the pads are like a suit of armor, thus the player has less regards to his own body because of the pads. There is a reason why the average life expectancy of a pro football player is 55yrs. The impacts are far greater than any other sport. Sport science on many levels have already proved this. But I'm not taking anything away from Rugby or Aussie Rules football. Its some wild sh*t. Looks fun and exciting, but way too much running for a cat like me!

Here's more proof of the difference, the island nation of Samoa has a rich tradition in both rugby and football. Samoa has the greatest number of NFL players than any other country with the exception of the US. They play the game just like we do here in the states. Those who have the talent play on Sundays, those who don't play Rugby. There is a reason why the only Rugby players who have ever made and NFL team are kickers and many if not most of the Rugby players from the US and Samoa are all former football players who couldn't make it at the next level....Just sayin!!!!

By the way, I attended the 7's tourney here in Vegas this past weekend. Loved the action and loved the fans. They are both great sports, but the money speaks volumes...

**dec11** · 02-14-2011, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

HAHAHAHAHAHA!! I just wanted to see you cats get bent out of shape. The reason why we wear pads is because we are bigger, stronger, and faster! LOL!!! Plus pads don't reduce injuries (studies showed this). They increase them. The mentality of a football player is the pads are like a suit of armor, thus the player has less regards to his own body because of the pads. There is a reason why the average life expectancy of a pro football player is 55yrs. The impacts are far greater than any other sport. Sport science on many levels have already proved this. But I'm not taking anything away from Rugby or Aussie Rules football. Its some wild sh*t. Looks fun and exciting, but way too much running for a cat like me!

Here's more proof of the difference, the island nation of Samoa has a rich tradition in both rugby and football. Samoa has the greatest number of NFL players than any other country with the exception of the US. They play the game just like we do here in the states. Those who have the talent play on Sundays, those who don't play Rugby. There is a reason why the only Rugby players who have ever made and NFL team are kickers and many if not most of the Rugby players from the US and Samoa are all former football players who couldn't make it at the next level....Just sayin!!!!

By the way, I attended the 7's tourney here in Vegas this past weekend. Loved the action and loved the fans. They are both great sports, but the money speaks volumes...

love 7's, whole diff game. great running action

**dec11** · 02-14-2011, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by number twelve

i think it will be england vs france in the final. i have a feeling france will win, esp if it is at home

there isnt a 'final' only 'more prominent' matches. ireland should do the triple crown and hopefully france trip up against england leaving the championship open

**MACHINE5150** · 02-14-2011, 12:58 PM

i played football and rugby.. i will tell you now that rugby players are better athletes.. football does have bigger hits.. bigger players too since you only have to move a few meters.. being a defensive tackle in football and a prop in rugby i do miss all the time outs now that i play rugby over here.. it is hard to keep up with that pace.

As for the 6 nations.. it all comes down to england france.. we will see though.. cause Ireland has the potential to beat England if we just give it a little extr push when we play england at Aviva stadium. If england beats france and we beat england then does it come down to points?? not sure how it works over here?

**BgMc31** · 02-14-2011, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by MACHINE5150

i played football and rugby.. i will tell you now that rugby players are better athletes.. football does have bigger hits.. bigger players too since you only have to move a few meters.. being a defensive tackle in football and a prop in rugby i do miss all the time outs now that i play rugby over here.. it is hard to keep up with that pace.

As for the 6 nations.. it all comes down to england france.. we will see though.. cause Ireland has the potential to beat England if we just give it a little extr push when we play england at Aviva stadium. If england beats france and we beat england then does it come down to points?? not sure how it works over here?

That statement can be debunked on several levels. Simply because we can compare hard numbers (speed, strength, etc) of the best rugby players as compared to the best football players. Now if you mean Rugby players are better conditioned athletes, then that's a point I can concede to. But better athletes all around...absolutely absurd.

**dec11** · 02-14-2011, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by MACHINE5150

i played football and rugby.. i will tell you now that rugby players are better athletes.. football does have bigger hits.. bigger players too since you only have to move a few meters.. being a defensive tackle in football and a prop in rugby i do miss all the time outs now that i play rugby over here.. it is hard to keep up with that pace.

As for the 6 nations.. it all comes down to england france.. we will see though.. cause Ireland has the potential to beat England if we just give it a little extr push when we play england at Aviva stadium. If england beats france and we beat england then does it come down to points?? not sure how it works over here?

yes, championship can still be irelands

**dec11** · 02-14-2011, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

That statement can be debunked on several levels. Simply because we can compare hard numbers (speed, strength, etc) of the best rugby players as compared to the best football players. Now if you mean Rugby players are better conditioned athletes, then that's a point I can concede to. But better athletes all around...absolutely absurd.

ive played gaelic football, hurling and rugby. rugby was the toughest training by far.

how couldnt they be better athletes btw? just because they arent american? are americans genetics more superior? this is how you sound bgmc31

**MACHINE5150** · 02-14-2011, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

That statement can be debunked on several levels. Simply because we can compare hard numbers (speed, strength, etc) of the best rugby players as compared to the best football players. Now if you mean Rugby players are better conditioned athletes, then that's a point I can concede to. But better athletes all around...absolutely absurd.

the bottom line is that you can be a huge fat ass and still play line in football.. you won't get away with that in rugby. So perhaps what i meant was better conditioned athletes.. i will say that the runningback/wide reciever/ quarterbacks may be comparable, but lineman are not really athletes, they are just huge guys that can smash the sh!t out of eachother.. keep in mind i was a lineman and mean no disrespect..

Another thing you need to take into consideration is this.. a runningback will never make a tackle, a lineman will never run with the ball, no one on the feild will ever kick the ball except the kicker... in rugby we all get the ball and we all have to tackle, and occaissionally we all kick the ball.. so rugby players would be more well rounded athletes.. The only reason that they are faster is because they are all african american.. I am not trying to be racist, but african americans are typically faster than any white european anyways, a simple look at the history of the olympic games can confirm this. But i would like to see Aaron Rodgers try and make a tackle or drop kick the ball while running with it.. not going to happen, in football you do one thing and you must do it real well, in rugby you have to do everything.

**MACHINE5150** · 02-14-2011, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by dec11

yes, championship can still be irelands

i'd say it will be a mad one in town when we play england in a few weeks.. i hope we make up for lost ground against scotland and wales.. especially since we barely got past italy in the opener

**BgMc31** · 02-14-2011, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by dec11

ive played gaelic football, hurling and rugby. rugby was the toughest training by far.

how couldnt they be better athletes btw? just because they arent american? are americans genetics more superior? this is how you sound bgmc31

Oh no, I don't mean that by any means, Dec11. What I mean is comparing hard data (speed, strength, etc). Those numbers are measurable and American football players are by far superior athletes. Nothing to do with them being American, especially considering the large number of Samoan, Hatian, and Nigerian athletes in the NFL.

**BgMc31** · 02-14-2011, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by MACHINE5150

the bottom line is that you can be a huge fat ass and still play line in football.. you won't get away with that in rugby. So perhaps what i meant was better conditioned athletes.. i will say that the runningback/wide reciever/ quarterbacks may be comparable, but lineman are not really athletes, they are just huge guys that can smash the sh!t out of eachother.. keep in mind i was a lineman and mean no disrespect..

Another thing you need to take into consideration is this.. a runningback will never make a tackle, a lineman will never run with the ball, no one on the feild will ever kick the ball except the kicker... in rugby we all get the ball and we all have to tackle, and occaissionally we all kick the ball.. so rugby players would be more well rounded athletes.. The only reason that they are faster is because they are all african american.. I am not trying to be racist, but african americans are typically faster than any white european anyways, a simple look at the history of the olympic games can confirm this. But i would like to see Aaron Rodgers try and make a tackle or drop kick the ball while running with it.. not going to happen, in football you do one thing and you must do it real well, in rugby you have to do everything.

At what level did you play football Machine because you seem way off base with your knowledge of football. Huge fat asses playing football? They may be huge and overweight, but 330-350lb men running sub 5 flat forties don't make them non athletic. BJ Raji while you may consider him a fat ass ran a 4.8 forty, and can dunk a basketball, far from non athletic. That fact that you would say that lineman aren't athletes shows you know very little about football. Most backside tackles were two sport athletes in college (basketball and/or shot/discus throwers). Most at 6'7+ and 320+ run sub 5 forties. How is that not athletic. And try playing against one, then tell me they aren't athletes.

Aaron Rodgers isn't black, so I don't see what this has to do with anything. But because you have to do everything in Rugby, you become a jack of all trades and a master at nothing...using your logic. Plus again African Americans aren't the fastest, over the last several Olympics it's been the Jamaicans who dominate the Olympics in the sprints. And if speed with the only determining factor, then why don't the African countries do extremely well in rugby.

I'm not taking nothing away from Rugby players, they are tremendous athletes. Just like I don't take anything away from any other athlete from any other sport. If you're good enough to make it to the top of any sport, you are an athlete. I'm just saying, Rugby players aren't better athletes than football players. The hard data proves this. They may be better conditioned and they might be tougher (whatever the hell that means), but that doesn't equal overall, better athletes. Only hard data numbers can measure that.

**MACHINE5150** · 02-14-2011, 04:17 PM

i only played football in highschool.. at the pro levels i agree with you they are all the best in their games, and are all athletes. As for why don't African countries do well in Rugby, well that is because they don't play it. Rugby is only played in countries that were once part of the British Empire.

I must admit though, i would love to get the pads on again just for a few games.. the type of hits you take/make in Football are not found anywhere else in the feild of sports.. well maybe Hockey..

**BgMc31** · 02-14-2011, 05:10 PM

^^^not to toot my own horn, but I played at a west texas powerhouse in high school, played D1 Ball in college, played 4yrs in the NFL, and 5yrs of semi-pro ball (where I won two national championships and two national defensive player of the year awards). Now I coach and train high school and college athletes to get to the next level. I'm just stating this because I don't want you to think I'm coming from a place of zero knowledge.

Having played against the likes of Jonathan Ogden, Orlando Pace, and Larry Allen (3 of the biggest lineman ever, not to mention Larry Allen was a 700lb bencher). I remember questioning myself when these guys during most plays were nearly out-running me to the point of contact. These guys were so explosive and athletic it was scary. But the general public only sees what they see on TV. TV doesn't show an accurate picture because everyone on that level is that big and that fast. So it looks almost pedestrian.

But the same holds true for Rugby, I always here people say that it doesn't look so tough and that they could do it because they played high school football. But to step on the field and take those hits and all that running. It's tough as hell. So I take nothing from those guys. I was merely commenting on the level of athleticism and those levels are measurable.

If I showed any disrespect, I apologize, as that was not my intention.

And as far as African Nations competing in Rugby, you do realize that a large amount of Africa was under British rule for years. Countries like Niger, Cameroon, Nigeria, Angola, South Africa, and a few others were represented at the 7s tourney here in Vegas and they did quite well.

**dec11** · 02-14-2011, 05:32 PM

rugby used to be an amateur sport until it went pro in 1995. granted, players werent very athletic looking then, but when money came into the game it soon tightened up.
have you ever checked out rugby league bgmc31, as opposed to rugby union? some of those guys are akin to very lean plifters, big guys.

interesting that all these games we are discussing are all derived off what was considered all out wars between english villages and towns in the 1800's. the ball would have been a pigs bladder and a 'match' could last days on a 'pitch' consisting of miles of fields!

**BgMc31** · 02-14-2011, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by dec11

rugby used to be an amateur sport until it went pro in 1995. granted, players werent very athletic looking then, but when money came into the game it soon tightened up.
have you ever checked out rugby league bgmc31, as opposed to rugby union? some of those guys are akin to very lean plifters, big guys.

interesting that all these games we are discussing are all derived off what was considered all out wars between english villages and towns in the 1800's. the ball would have been a pigs bladder and a 'match' could last days on a 'pitch' consisting of miles of fields!

I've checked out both the rugby league and the rugby union. I have a English friend (he is now the top ranked strongman in England) who played in the Rugby league. And I have a Tongan friend who played with the Tongan team and spent two years on the All Blacks. He actually played the other ILB with me in college, so I know his skill level, but he also didn't make it in the NFL (wasn't drafted, but did play in NFL Europe for a couple seasons). I know how big a lot and muscular some of these guys are. I also know how strong they are, but that doesn't necessarily translate into good athletes. We used to have a saying in football with a lot of the guys who were beast in the weight room but punks on the football field. We always said they look like Tarzan but play like Jane! LOL!!!

Again, Dec, I'm not saying that Rugby players aren't good athletes. If it came across that way, again, I apologize.

**dec11** · 02-14-2011, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

I've checked out both the rugby league and the rugby union. I have a English friend (he is now the top ranked strongman in England) who played in the Rugby league. And I have a Tongan friend who played with the Tongan team and spent two years on the All Blacks. He actually played the other ILB with me in college, so I know his skill level, but he also didn't make it in the NFL (wasn't drafted, but did play in NFL Europe for a couple seasons). I know how big a lot and muscular some of these guys are. I also know how strong they are, but that doesn't necessarily translate into good athletes. We used to have a saying in football with a lot of the guys who were beast in the weight room but punks on the football field. We always said they look like Tarzan but play like Jane! LOL!!!

Again, Dec, I'm not saying that Rugby players aren't good athletes. If it came across that way, again, I apologize.

ah yeah, same as any sport, some are there and no more, whereas some are wizzards like brian o'driscoll, jonah lomu and serge blanco etc. who in their right mind would have relished jonah lomu coming at em full tilt? the man just ran through players lol

no offence taken

**auslifta** · 02-14-2011, 06:57 PM

I find American football boring, too much stopping. Not taking anything away from their ability, I like hearing about 300+ guys that can run fast as well. Rugby is better to watch and play but still not as good as Rugby league. Rugby league (different to rugby) has some great players that I think would make great running backs in the NFL Greg Inglis and Isreal Falou-before he left to AFL. Here is a small sample of Inglis....... Can't wait this season he is with my club.

**auslifta** · 02-14-2011, 07:06 PM

Here is Falou, would have made a great wide receiver,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnqo0ypxgnY

**BgMc31** · 02-15-2011, 12:00 AM

See auslifta, that's where we differ. I enjoyed playing football better than Rugby, granted I only played twice on my buddies club team, but the running was way too much for me. Not that I wasn't in shape, but the 6-10second explosions of power on the football field was always a tremendous adrenaline rush. It's almost like attempting a massive weight lifting attempt. To be able to explode fulll power into someone without regard for my body was almost orgasmic. While I don't find Rugby boring, I definitely find football more appealing to watch. And its because I know the game of football and you know the game of Rugby, so that's the difference. Both games are tremendous though. Don't get me wrong! Both games take huge balls. Scientists equate a linebackers day at the office is 60-70, 30-45 MPH head on collisions a day, WITHOUT A SEATBELT...F*CKING AWESOME!!! I definitely miss it. That is until I wake up in the morning and realize I can't get out of bed or I can't remember things from 2-3 days prior! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

**drdeath613** · 02-15-2011, 07:29 AM

Herschel Walker age 48

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

so good he gave up the nfl life and went to mma far from a fat ass and most people at any given sport look anything like him at almost 50

**BgMc31** · 03-01-2011, 12:15 AM

Now I'm usually not one to bump old threads. But this definitely has some correlation with the debate we were having. Have any of you been checking out the draft combine? Well today, the defensive linemen were competing, 30 of these guys ran sub 5.0 forties...30!!!!! Most of these guys are over between 280-320lbs. The kid from Alabama ran 4.9 at 319lbs. The fastest ran a 4.44 forty. That is close to world class, olympic level speed! Now before somebody on here squawks about being able to run a 4.2 or something like that. Hand timed forties aren't the same as the computer timed 40s at the combine, there can be as much as 2-3 tenth difference between a hand timed forty and a computer timed forty. For instance, in 95, my coaches consistently clocked me at 4.5, 4.6, range but during my pro day when they put the gun on me (computer tested), I ran consistently in the 4.7-4.8 range.

But seriously fellas, if you get a chance, check out the draft combine on NFL network. Some of these guys, no most of these guys, are freaks of nature. There are days when I wish I still played, then I see these kids nowadays and I'm like...F*CK!!! LOL! Simply amazing athletes!!