alright, eurocucks, I'll bite.
How many rugby players caught the dumb from how intensely their butting (helmeted even) heads?
Rugby, anyone who says football is asinine. Rugby players are actual athletes, football players are fatasses who lift heavy shit. Id also say that Soccer or Track and feild have the potential to be maniler but rugby over football anyday.
The rules of rugby mean it's rare for the same head on collisions you get in football. That's the whole issue and the reason for the padding. The guys on the line all litterally run into each other. Rugby has the scrum instead.
Both are manly, rugby is a better sport. American here.
I dont but I know people who do, I guess its their version of soccer and since americans are used to very short snippits of information the quick plays followed by time for beer and food works well.
There less brain damage in rugby because they actually use technique
Sure but they have no stamina because there a break in play like every 10 seconds
OH SHIT, look guys, one footballer is in shape. I thought we were talking in general here. You cant be a rugby player with 35% body fat percentage. You can be a line backer like that though.
> Best athletes in the world
Football = short range/burst power.
Rugby = more balanced power and endurance.
Football players train to run 40 yards at a time with many breaks so they can afford to bulk more and aim for just strength and top speed.
Rugby players run on average over 7 miles per game and have to interact with the ball and other players more so they require note endurance and fitness.
Both require peak physical conditioning to perform well.
Personally I think rugby is far more entertaining to watch as the game keeps moving and plays have to flow into one another.
Rugby has like football different positions and this was the average prop ten years ago but times have changed and he is now on the outer he was dropped by his country a couple years ago
in football, you have guys who are 6'3 and 280 pounds, literally running at you to smash you into the ground... in rugby, you have lean 5'9 manlets jumping around for a ball.
and all that "rugby players don't wear pads and helmets, so they're more hardcore" bullshit doesn't fly... because if they had 11 6'3 and 280 lbs. guys running at them, they would be stupid eurotrash not to wear protective gear
So because ameritards run head first into each other until the cause a serious brain injury it's a more manly sport...
I find American Football too dull to watch, Rugby is fast paced and constant attacking, they don't stop every 30 seconds and switch the team over.
it depends on your definition of manly.
It is a fact that the fastest people that play football are faster than the fastest rugby players. Football players hit harder than rugby players. However, football players wear armor, the majority of them can only do their one assigned task (hitting, throwing, running, blocking) so they are all geared up for one thing or the other. Everyone who plays rugby is a machine, they run, hit, can take a hit, throw, kick. It depends on whether you are judging each player on every scale or if you are judging the extremes of every aspect. Plus football players wear pads, but so did every person who fought in a war in the last 1000 years
> It is a fact that the fastest people that play football are faster than the fastest rugby players.
Gonna need a citation for that
> Football players hit harder than rugby players.
> Plus football players wear pads, but so did every person who fought in a war in the last 1000 years
Cricketers wear pads as well. Comparing handegg to war because "both wear pad" is just dumb bro.
Showjumping. A real man is power and class.
The running backs for American football sprint like Olympic runners. It's not a dick waving contest. These guys are smaller nimble sprinters. They won't have the same endurance as a rugby guy, but a rugby players would be real hard pressed to catch him in the first 100 yards.
When football players can train like this, then they can be called manly
Football is tougher.
what rugby team has 15 starting players who are 250+lbs.? every major league team has their players' stats posted online, so this should be easy for you to show your work, eurotrash dummy
But is "faster for a tiny distance" really "faster"?
I wouldn't argue that people who train nothing but being able to go fast for a short duration will be good at it, but I would argue that doesn't make them faster.
If we have a 100 yard dash, a 200, an 800 and a 1500 hundred how many would the running back win? The 100 sure, maybe the 200 (Though doubtful they can keep such a pace for twice as long as they're used to) but as the races get longer they get worse at it.
I am reminded of the time a New Zealand Rugby player (Buck Shelford) tore a testicle, and kept playing the rest of the game, only letting on that he had torn apart his literal manliness after winning.
But for sure, fuck getting tackled in two directions at once, that wouldn't carry in rugby.
Even our female rugby players are more manly than faggot americunt footballers
Let's get actually real, even the youth teams are bigger than that.
Most forwards are well over 6ft, you basically can't play in the back row or 2nd row if you're under 6'3" so that's 5 people on the pitch right off the bat.
Generally some of the shortest players will be in the front row but they are also the heaviest on the field.
Even in the backs (the faster players) more and more are now huge
Average height for nearly every team, 6ft2
Average weight for nearly every team 260lb's+
That's an old picture, half that team is retired now.
Plus that still doesn't prove your point, Paul O'Connel on the far left is 6'6", next to him Brian O'Driscoll is one of the only short players and one of the lightest on the pitch and he is still over 200lbs...
No one has brought up yet that in Football (American) the players can't even play defensive and offensive. You literally stop and swap players over when the ball changes hands.
Richie f'n McCaw would catch come cunt (typically Aussie or Saffa), smash that cunt to the ground, get a cheeky boot in for good measure, steal the ball and run 80 metres into a wall of Solid Africaans Muscle, bounce those cunts out of the way and score.
But sure, pause and swap players every time the ball switches, that's manly. ::eyeroll::
Obviously, different position require different builds. But for all the faggot talking about tiny manlets in rugby it's good to point out that the All Blacks average team height is 6ft2 and average team weight is like 240lbs.
It's just a fact that both sports have goddam big dudes in them. Do americucks really believe a full contact physical sport isn't going to be dominated by massive dudes?
You're looking at the wrong pictures faggot
Murrican football is better.
When you realize it's white billionaires putting up play money to entice a bunch of niggers to enlist as the hired goons, and an entire staff of white organizers and coaches and trainers get them into some kind of shape, and pick the best ones, and fill stadiums with white people, who bet on them as they give each other concussions and spinal cord injuries for our entertainment lol.
However, murrican football is played by jungle animals, whereas Rugby is actually played by men, so Rugby is by definition more manly.
So futbol has 40 (completely separate offense, defense, reserves, and "I'm special" teams) players working for 11 minutes over 3 hours.
While the rugby guys have 6 reserves for 15 players and run for 34 of 100 minutes.
Look at the rb for the 49ers.jarred jarrett someting like that. Monster in rugby, went to the nfl. Was great in pre-season but was shut down all regular season. Meanwhile there is a short black kid kid tearing up a certain rugby league that was a wash up in the nfl.
The rugby as the footbal player is padded and he wears a helmet fucking gay
I play both sports. Football takes a lot harder hits with very little regulated rules in hitting another player. They also have a lot of space to generate the amount of hitting power on one player because of the style of how they play. Rugby is a consistency on hitting. You will most likely be closer against the player with the ball (in exception to the wing and fullback during defense) and they have regulated rules in tackling to make sure its safe and thats why they don't need pads. Both are great sports to play.
dude, they don't tackle the problems head first like the american goons do, the rules are different and even though rugby is a overall rougher sport it is still less damaging to your head.
The most common injury besides bruises is probably broken fingers or strained muscles
Lol this is the most useless stale pasta for this stale bread.
The rugby player in pink literally looks like he could pull the arms and legs off that fag on the right. The football player looks like he's even styled his hair pre game. kek
Who's manlier? dumb question. Both infinitely more manly than than most on this thread. Britbong rugby fan here who has tried to get into american football but just can't. Rugby is much better to watch and think if the yanks took it seriously, they would get pretty good, pretty quick.
>moral authority considers the battles between the low in the Roman coliseum brutal & savage
>spends billions building state of the art coliseums of its own to do it every week
american football is boring as all hell to watch, I feel the game pauses and stops all the time, its like it was made for a kid with learning disabilities who also struggled with attention span, ffs, why does the damned game have to stop all the time??
How do you stand a sport with so little entertainment value?
watching the mid section of a marathon is more entertaining than american hand egg...
I mean, I tried watching the superbowl, supposed to be so great, felt the whole thing was just one huge advertisement.. huge disappointment