leave it out, jony. your poodle-headed club captain is hardly an advert for manliness, is he?

Holland is world-champion in sissy sport baseball...

I do, however, prefer cricket. Is cricket more manly than baseball?? The aussies are good at it, they are manly I guess.

I got hooked when Brian Lara and the West-Indies toured England in the 1990s (series draw I think). Then two years later or so Sky purchased the TV rights

hendrikus said:

Holland is world-champion in sissy sport baseball...

I do, however, prefer cricket. Is cricket more manly than baseball?? The aussies are good at it, they are manly I guess.

I got hooked when Brian Lara and the West-Indies toured England in the 1990s (series draw I think). Then two years later or so Sky purchased the TV rights

Did u say cricket hendrikus....

davetherave6767 said:

hendrikus said:

Holland is world-champion in sissy sport baseball...

I do, however, prefer cricket. Is cricket more manly than baseball?? The aussies are good at it, they are manly I guess.

I got hooked when Brian Lara and the West-Indies toured England in the 1990s (series draw I think). Then two years later or so Sky purchased the TV rights

Did u say cricket hendrikus....

Yes. I enjoy most English sports. Most of them appear quite dull at first sight, but you need to persevere. Rugby, Snooker, Cricket, Darts, Bowls.. I like them all. The people playing darts, snooker and bowls are still often the same after 20 years.

Funny enough, the English are very often quite poor in a lot of sports only they and their former colonies play.

[Edited 10/26/11 15:54pm]

hendrikus said:

davetherave6767 said:

Did u say cricket hendrikus....

Yes. I enjoy most English sports. Most of them appear quite dull at first sight, but you need to persevere. Rugby, Snooker, Cricket, Darts, Bowls.. I like them all. The people playing darts, snooker and bowls are still often the same after 20 years.

Funny enough, the English are very often quite poor in a lot of sports only they and their former colonies play.

[Edited 10/26/11 15:54pm]

Eye like watching darts/snooker/bowls.....relaxes me...My dad ttok me 2 watch England plaay the west indies when i was 10.....Viv Richards was the man back then...Carlos king eye think?My dad was always singing "eye dont like cricket.....no no......eye love it......Good days....

whistle said:

leave it out, jony. your poodle-headed club captain is hardly an advert for manliness, is he?

AYE GOOD POINT

lol Their two different sports.

Rugby players have more endurance and flexibility

American football players hit harder because of the usage of padding.

namepeace said:

Dave1992 said:

"My daddy is stronger than your daddy!!!"

Just because many of your American Football players have to take half naked pictures of themselves as part of the whole package of the show and almost all Rugby players are simply sportsmen who would never undress for a magazine (like all football players used to be, up until George Best), doesn't mean they have less muscle.

Those Rugby fellas are extremely big, strong lads. The only difference is, they also have to run all the fucking time, contrary to American Football players.

Okay, Dave. Keep telling yourself your rugby players would stand a chance.

It's not just about size and strength, it's about speed, agility, quickness. That's apparently what you're not getting.

The guys I'm talking about are not only bigger and stronger, they're faster and quicker. You simply don't know what you're talking about, so you can delude yourself if you like.

Well, I looked up some stats on average body size, weight etc. of rugby and American football players and you're simply not right.

Apart from that, I remember reading somewhere that you burn way, way more calories in an average Rugby game compared to an American football game.

And strength/muscle is indirectly proportional to speed, agility and quickness. So your heroes can either be stronger or quicker, but certainly not both, and certainly do not have to have more stamina.

With the time professional sportsmen spend training and working out (a couple of hours a day), do you seriously think Rugby players are not top notch sportsmen?

I have watched a lot of Rugby and American football matches (I doubt you watched your share or Rugby), so it's really easy to say that the sports part of American football (which, to me, makes up not more than 50% of the event), of course, is tough, but simply cannot be as physically exhausting as Rugby, because Rugby players have to think, run, tackle, kick, look, get up, whipe away blood and give their all in a scrum all the time, without advert breaks, without show-time celebrations etc.

American Football players do not.

Apart from your argument about who would win in a fight being really silly and childish; how would you even know who would win?

I can't even say your argument is flawed, because there actually is none.

namepeace said:

Dave1992 said:

What do you even mean by "last"? I could run around on an American Football field without anyone being able to break my neck, even if I don't play American Football myself.

[Edited 10/26/11 13:57pm]

Which means that I could at least survive/"last", even if I provably would be shit at playing. I just tried to explain that there are many definitions of the word last, which you'd have to clear up before trying to make a point, if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Apart from all that, I'm not English. I can't have a biased opinion, because there is no heritage or country or culture I'd have to defend.

I watched my share of both sports and know how exhausting sports are and to me it is simply clear that Rugby is the tougher and more exhausting sport (apart from being 100% sport and not partly show).

The show aspect is what I like the least about American Football. A funny comparison between American football and Rugby I like to make is the one with catholicism and protestanism.

AF is catholic; huge show-effects and thatrics (frankincense etc), while Rugby is protestant (ascetic, very down to earth and serious [and simply better]).

But that's just a funny aside. I doubt namepeace would understand it.

american football players-amazing athletes

nobdy is doubting that

american football as a sport-shit

you cannot deny for some unbeknown reason rather than play rugby you lot put on loads of protective gear and called it "american football"

which initself is arrogant as fuck

Football, The only time in life a Grown Man can roll around the Floor crying like a Baby after getting kicked in the Shin.............

If I rolled around the Floor crying everytime a Bull, Cow or Horse kicked me in the Shin, Leg, Balls, Face etc when I worked on the Farms, I would have had the Piss took out of me, then probably Sacked and have no self dignity..............

Btw American Football is quite brutal, also running around with all that "Sissy" Gear on is bloody exhausting, I tried playing for an after school club many years ago, I stopped playing after seeing my Friends Knee Cap getting popped out, damn that was gross

Dude, you could not expect this thread to go any different. It is an American website.

(sarcasm)

Shanti0608 said:

Dude, you could not expect this thread to go any different. It is an American website.

(sarcasm)

Why sarcasm? Is this actually a North Korean website?

(irony)

(above all else, a simple chat-up line)

I used to play rugby in school and uni and I'm a big fan. But I watch the odd game of american football too.

They're completely different sports. American football is more high impact but that's possible because of all the breaks in play and having 3 seperate teams.

Not many rugby players could deal with the impacts but how many 350lb linemen would last 80+ minutes of continuous play without slowing down and leaving defensive gaps? Horses for courses.

But don't get me started on baseball - that's just a snoozefest.

Dave1992 said:

Shanti0608 said:

Dude, you could not expect this thread to go any different. It is an American website.

(sarcasm)

Why sarcasm? Is this actually a North Korean website?

(irony)

(above all else, a simple chat-up line)

I know, I guess irony is a much better word.

My input would not matter much so I didn't waste my breath.

Dave1992 said:

Shanti0608 said:

Dude, you could not expect this thread to go any different. It is an American website.

(sarcasm)

Why sarcasm? Is this actually a North Korean website?

(irony)

(above all else, a simple chat-up line)

Dave, do you see folks playing football often in Austria? might be a daft question, but i was thinking it might be more of a winter sport nation

whistle said:

Dave1992 said:

Why sarcasm? Is this actually a North Korean website?

(irony)

(above all else, a simple chat-up line)

Dave, do you see folks playing football often in Austria? might be a daft question, but i was thinking it might be more of a winter sport nation

I thought it was one of the major sports there,

many Dutch coaches have worked in the Austrian Bundesliga

whistle said:

Dave1992 said:

Why sarcasm? Is this actually a North Korean website?

(irony)

(above all else, a simple chat-up line)

Dave, do you see folks playing football often in Austria? might be a daft question, but i was thinking it might be more of a winter sport nation

Skiing clearly is the sport we're the very best at (and it's probably number one sport in Austria), but Austria doesn't consist of snowy hills only. The eastern part (around Vienna) has hardly any hills to go skiing on, so here everybody plays football.

I'd say skiing and football share the top spot in popularity in Austria, closely followed by tennis.

So yes, we play lots of football, all the time.

hendrikus said:

whistle said:

Dave, do you see folks playing football often in Austria? might be a daft question, but i was thinking it might be more of a winter sport nation

I thought it was one of the major sports there,

many Dutch coaches have worked in the Austrian Bundesliga

Correct.

Still, the league and the national team is shit (although we've always had many players with lots of potential). I blame the conservative approach to the game of our coaches. When I used to play, for instance, I once got called up to play for my state at U15 level and the coaches I worked with then had nothing better to say than "if you feel like your opponents are better and you can't win the game anymore, kick them in the ankles and try to injure them".

That's exactly what happened to me. My ankles are damaged beyond all recognition and I can't play serious football anymore (and forget about playing at a high level, like for my country).

Coaches here don't care about whether you can control a ball and keep it on the ground and pass it around at high pace. Nope, you gotta know how to hurt an ankle without being booked.

thesexofit said:

jonylawson said:

football is played in EVERY single country in the world

it is the beautiful game

'amaerican" football has NEVER caught on hence why it is only played in the USA

As I said, I think part of the problem (Ok a major problem) is all the eqipment you need to properly play American football. Anyone can play football, use jumpers for goal posts LOL, kids all over the world still do that and always will. That and as I said, the rules of American football are too complex for kids on playgrounds to bother with.

Indeed football is the beautiful game. I love the fact that Africa have taken it to their hearts aswell. I know football is growing in America, but I still think kids would rather play basketballl or baseball in school playgrounds then football, and thats why it will never properly grow. Why that is I don't know LOL. Maybe that is changing too. But in schools I grew up in, it was always football that was by far the most popular sport to play at lunchtime. It wasn't even a think worth thinking about, it just was....

Poverty striken kids in all countries can play football, something few other sports can do say about themselves. And thats why it's by far the most popular sport worldwide any why the world cup dwarfs every sporting event on earth.

[Edited 10/25/11 21:02pm]

This.

People often tout the popularity of soccer as proof of it being a superior sport as if there is such a thing. Truth is, it's just a hell of a lot more accessible to the masses. All you need is a ball. No hoops. No pads. Nobody to throw to. No bats and bases. A ball.

Dave1992 said:

hendrikus said:

I thought it was one of the major sports there,

many Dutch coaches have worked in the Austrian Bundesliga

Correct.

Still, the league and the national team is shit (although we've always had many players with lots of potential). I blame the conservative approach to the game of our coaches. When I used to play, for instance, I once got called up to play for my state at U15 level and the coaches I worked with then had nothing better to say than "if you feel like your opponents are better and you can't win the game anymore, kick them in the ankles and try to injure them".

That's exactly what happened to me. My ankles are damaged beyond all recognition and I can't play serious football anymore (and forget about playing at a high level, like for my country).

Coaches here don't care about whether you can control a ball and keep it on the ground and pass it around at high pace. Nope, you gotta know how to hurt an ankle without being booked.

and sorry to hear that you got injured.

Mark Janko now plays in Holland. He does well, scores a lot. Still, all the pundits think he is shit. The reason is: he can't control a ball, pass it at high pace etc. (all the things you mentioned ).

FauxReal said:

thesexofit said:

As I said, I think part of the problem (Ok a major problem) is all the eqipment you need to properly play American football. Anyone can play football, use jumpers for goal posts LOL, kids all over the world still do that and always will. That and as I said, the rules of American football are too complex for kids on playgrounds to bother with.

Indeed football is the beautiful game. I love the fact that Africa have taken it to their hearts aswell. I know football is growing in America, but I still think kids would rather play basketballl or baseball in school playgrounds then football, and thats why it will never properly grow. Why that is I don't know LOL. Maybe that is changing too. But in schools I grew up in, it was always football that was by far the most popular sport to play at lunchtime. It wasn't even a think worth thinking about, it just was....

Poverty striken kids in all countries can play football, something few other sports can do say about themselves. And thats why it's by far the most popular sport worldwide any why the world cup dwarfs every sporting event on earth.

[Edited 10/25/11 21:02pm]

This.

People often tout the popularity of soccer as proof of it being a superior sport as if there is such a thing. Truth is, it's just a hell of a lot more accessible to the masses. All you need is a ball. No hoops. No pads. Nobody to throw to. No bats and bases. A ball.

But that is exactly the brilliance of football. It's down to earth, raw, direct and accessible to the masses and still never gets boring. There's all kinds of amazing things happening in each game. And, even though everyone could and can at least play it a bit, the steps from amateur to good player to professional to world beater are massive, which makes it even more interesting. When you watch a good player, you know exactly what he does and how to possibly do it, but you just can't do it yourself. It's beautiful and encouraging.

Dave1992 said:

FauxReal said:

This.

People often tout the popularity of soccer as proof of it being a superior sport as if there is such a thing. Truth is, it's just a hell of a lot more accessible to the masses. All you need is a ball. No hoops. No pads. Nobody to throw to. No bats and bases. A ball.

But that is exactly the brilliance of football. It's down to earth, raw, direct and accessible to the masses and still never gets boring. There's all kinds of amazing things happening in each game. And, even though everyone could and can at least play it a bit, the steps from amateur to good player to professional to world beater are massive, which makes it even more interesting. When you watch a good player, you know exactly what he does and how to possibly do it, but you just can't do it yourself. It's beautiful and encouraging.

Oh, I'm not saying it isn't. I just think it's silly to use "popularity" of all things as the measuring stick of the senseless and subjective title of "best sport in the world".

Edit: (Not talking popularity below. Speaking more to your points above. Bad transition on my part.)

Hell, if that's the case, boxing should trump all. Don't even need a ball and it's about as raw as sports can get (speaking moreso of boxing back in the day).

I have favorite sports. But I wouldn't say any sport is "best".

[Edited 10/27/11 16:39pm]

Dave1992 said:

namepeace said:

You don't watch much football, do you? The "fat" guys (who are as strong as bulls and could probably beat most people in a footrace) are offensive linemen and interior defensive linemen. That's 7 of the 22 guys out on the field and not all of them are "fat."

Find your best athletes on any given rugby squad. I'll take my best athletes on any NFL squad and We'll beat your guys in either sport.

"My daddy is stronger than your daddy!!!"

Just because many of your American Football players have to take half naked pictures of themselves as part of the whole package of the show and almost all Rugby players are simply sportsmen who would never undress for a magazine (like all football players used to be, up until George Best), doesn't mean they have less muscle.

Those Rugby fellas are extremely big, strong lads. The only difference is, they also have to run all the fucking time, contrary to American Football players.

No condemnation of the cheerleaders, just the beefcake?

They obviously have muscle. The visual comparison is measurement enough.

Pardon my vernacular, but soccer and rugby are very "gay".

Faking injuries and acting like drama queens on the field is a common occurance in those sports.

Rarely will you find an American Football player who is unwilling to sacrifice his body for a chance to play another down.

Taking a dive is an artform in soccer, while it will cost a player in the NFL thousands of dollars if he chooses to pretend that he is hurt on the turf.

+ The argument that no protective gear= "tougher" is hollow.

Rugby players are much smaller and collisions aren't nearly as dangerous seeing how all the sport consists of is a huddled mass of men wrestling for the ball. It's not like in Football where a cornerback is running full speed from 15 yards out to make a tackle, its just a bunch of grabbing and pulling in a big circle (remember what I said about the sport being "gay"? lol!)

minneapolisFunq said:

Pardon my vernacular, but soccer and rugby are very "gay".

Faking injuries and acting like drama queens on the field is a common occurance in those sports.

Rarely will you find an American Football player who is unwilling to sacrifice his body for a chance to play another down.

Taking a dive is an artform in soccer, while it will cost a player in the NFL thousands of dollars if he chooses to pretend that he is hurt on the turf.

+ The argument that no protective gear= "tougher" is hollow.

Rugby players are much smaller and collisions aren't nearly as dangerous seeing how all the sport consists of is a huddled mass of men wrestling for the ball. It's not like in Football where a cornerback is running full speed from 15 yards out to make a tackle, its just a bunch of grabbing and pulling in a big circle (remember what I said about the sport being "gay"? lol!)

I get your drift, but you're generalising much and are forgetting that it's the sportsmen's choice if they dive or not.

In England, for instance, it's not an artform to dive. Stadiums filled with 70 000 suppters boo their own player when he dives (usually). Yes, in South America or Spain it is considered to be part of the game, but it actually isn't. There are players who dive (and who are therefor disrespected by a majority of fans [me included] and other players), and there are players who would never do that.

Concerning Rugby, I'm convinced you're very wrong. Of course I haven't seen all Rugby games in the history of the sport, but never ever did I even get the drift that a player on the pitch was faking an injury. Actually, they wipe away the blood on their faces and continue playing (which isn't even allowed in football). It wouldn't even make sense fot a rugby player to fake an injury, because he would simply get substituted, whereas in football, where you can only make three substitutions during a game, it can also be a way to take a break while the clock is ticking on etc.

I doubt you have watched a lot of rugby games. The scenario of someone running full speed and being tackled is every-day shit in rugby. The difference is, the game isn't stopped then, but the running usually continues immediately.

As an overall sport rugby is simply the toughest out of these three, when you include how exhausting and multisided it is.

SUPRMAN said:

Dave1992 said:

"My daddy is stronger than your daddy!!!"

Just because many of your American Football players have to take half naked pictures of themselves as part of the whole package of the show and almost all Rugby players are simply sportsmen who would never undress for a magazine (like all football players used to be, up until George Best), doesn't mean they have less muscle.

Those Rugby fellas are extremely big, strong lads. The only difference is, they also have to run all the fucking time, contrary to American Football players.

No condemnation of the cheerleaders, just the beefcake?

They obviously have muscle. The visual comparison is measurement enough.

Cheerleading is very tough, but I simply don't like the "show" aspect of it. It's like Hollywood - tough, but extremely shallow and superficial.

Ok, lets settle this

As only those that have played both sports can really comment.....hands up those that have actually played rugby and american football for any length of time? Anyone other than me?

having lived in America for some time now, i would say that most Europeans sell American football short because of the pads and helmets. these men are just bigger, stronger and faster than rugby players. without the protection, the game would be fatal.

there are dozens of men the size of Jonah Lomu in the NFL.