StarGateWars Forums

Damn saw that vid Wolf posted its like bulls going at eachother

Still like soccer more

LegendaryApophis wrote:I've also seen rugby and my uncle who is much interested into rugby once been at a match american footballers vs rugbymen...guess who was butchered?
Hint: no knightish protections were allowed hehe

So your saying that American football players are sissy because pro rugby players played SEMI pro american football players in a game of RUGBY and won? Wow, I bet your the head of the debate team aren't you...

LegendaryApophis wrote:Didn't say american footballers were sissies, just said that they wear protections while rugbymen don't..so as much as american footballers are tough, rugbymen are tougher.

LOL, wow... Look, not to disrespect rugby, its a very physical game... No denying that... However, American Football is JUST as physical. You see, I've seen several rugby matches... Hell, I've even gone on youtube and search for the hardest hits in rugby... Know what all the hard rugby hits have in commen? The fact that when the person with the ball is getting tackled / going to get tackled, he is standing staight up about 70% of the time. Meaning that anyone can make a hit that LOOKS huge when the person running the ball has a straight back. In american football you will see any decent player lowers his head and shoulders, and pushes into the tackle. I'm not saying rugby players couldn't tackle American Football players, what i'm saying is that even in the NFL, when a player runs into a defender standing straight up... Generally the tackle looks worse then it truly is.

LiQuiD wrote:football is the real one peeps. american football is jus a bunch of dudes, putting on a bunch of armour to play rugby

i think the breaks in american football are made as they are solely for advertising. basing a sport around adverts sucks royally.

we need to see the top nfl team play the top rugby team in both their games. id pay mad cash to see that

For one, the padding is different because its different styles of play. Does that make rugby players tougher? No.
Also, top NFL team vs top rugby team at rugby : rugby team would win
Top NFL team vs top rugby team at american football : NFL team would win.
Period.


All in all, to say that American Football is wimpy compared to rugby is a totally ignorant statement. In American Football you have people ranging from 240-300+ pounds whose only goal is to hit you so hard that you drop the ball... Am I saying rugby players don't hit hard? No, what I am saying though is that football tackles tend to linger on the more dangerous side where as rugby tackles (while possibly just as hard, yet different) tend to not leave as many people lying there. Does that mean that any American Football player would get killed in a Rugby game? No, does that mean that any Rugby player (with or without pads) would get killed in an NFL game? No, what it means is that they games are different and the tackling is different. Neither side is tougher then the other because they are different. It's like comparing basketball and baseball.. They are different sports. One has a certain amount of padding (baseball) while basketball doesn't. Does that mean that basketball or baseball require "tougher" players then the other? No. Like I originally said, its because they are played differently, and as such can't exactly be compared. However, since a few people are saying that we wear pads cause we are sissy's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDA67sdfPg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc1fOWyXgd0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H2kuh_DO5o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6ZOK8okDRA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAQrxahyXow

Those are just a few examples... Without pads any one of those hits would have killed the reciever...

Anyways on topic: Name wise, Soccer = Football, but who cares what its called, long as the players play the way they do?

This entire arguement rests solely around a word. Football (Soccer) and Gridiron (Football) are entirely different sports. To not consider that when you're talking to an American that they're national sport is called Football, and oh look, so is the British one is ignorance. You can take a stupid arguement and bash it out until the cows come home, but you will never change the habits of a lifetime, and certainly not that of a 200m+ nation of NFL watchers.

In terms of commerce, football (soccer) is up there as one of the worst. Overpaid players on extortionate salaries that are entirely unrealistic based on what they actually do. It's all about merchandising and advertising, just like the NFL. So that arguement is stupid too.

As for rugby versus gridiron? I'm not sure I'd like to go up against a player from either sport. They might be padded in NFL but did you notice how much faster the average player is than in rugby? Now, I'm not physician but usually when things come at your faster they cause more impact. Listen to your man Alex up there. Think he knows what he's talking about.

The only credible snippet of fact in this whole lousy debate is the fact that the actual use of the foot is significantly more in football (soccer). That's when they're not on the floor rolling around like morons (and I was going to girls but that's an insult to girls).

Though I love football (soccer) despite it's waning credibility, it's stupid to put this arguement forward, even if it was a bit of fun.

Diamond Dust wrote:This entire arguement rests solely around a word. Football (Soccer) and Gridiron (Football) are entirely different sports. To not consider that when you're talking to an American that they're national sport is called Football, and oh look, so is the British one is ignorance. You can take a stupid arguement and bash it out until the cows come home, but you will never change the habits of a lifetime, and certainly not that of a 200m+ nation of NFL watchers.

In terms of commerce, football (soccer) is up there as one of the worst. Overpaid players on extortionate salaries that are entirely unrealistic based on what they actually do. It's all about merchandising and advertising, just like the NFL. So that arguement is stupid too.

As for rugby versus gridiron? I'm not sure I'd like to go up against a player from either sport. They might be padded in NFL but did you notice how much faster the average player is than in rugby? Now, I'm not physician but usually when things come at your faster they cause more impact. Listen to your man Alex up there. Think he knows what he's talking about.

The only credible snippet of fact in this whole lousy debate is the fact that the actual use of the foot is significantly more in football (soccer). That's when they're not on the floor rolling around like morons (and I was going to girls but that's an insult to girls).

Though I love football (soccer) despite it's waning credibility, it's stupid to put this arguement forward, even if it was a bit of fun.

God damn you for being reasonable Dusty.

Let's revive it!

Diamond Dust wrote:This entire arguement rests solely around a word. Football (Soccer) and Gridiron (Football) are entirely different sports. To not consider that when you're talking to an American that they're national sport is called Football, and oh look, so is the British one is ignorance. You can take a stupid arguement and bash it out until the cows come home, but you will never change the habits of a lifetime, and certainly not that of a 200m+ nation of NFL watchers.

In terms of commerce, football (soccer) is up there as one of the worst. Overpaid players on extortionate salaries that are entirely unrealistic based on what they actually do. It's all about merchandising and advertising, just like the NFL. So that arguement is stupid too.

As for rugby versus gridiron? I'm not sure I'd like to go up against a player from either sport. They might be padded in NFL but did you notice how much faster the average player is than in rugby? Now, I'm not physician but usually when things come at your faster they cause more impact. Listen to your man Alex up there. Think he knows what he's talking about.

The only credible snippet of fact in this whole lousy debate is the fact that the actual use of the foot is significantly more in football (soccer). That's when they're not on the floor rolling around like morons (and I was going to girls but that's an insult to girls).

Though I love football (soccer) despite it's waning credibility, it's stupid to put this arguement forward, even if it was a bit of fun.

this!




well, thats it finished again for another few months.

><

I revived it full aware of that....

I want to hear American's pro NFL side on this matter, what they have to reply to Dusty...

Long time since I posted that. Wasn't the most fluid spiel in hindsight.

pffft, all your foreign, new sports. all overpaid, overhyped bunch of moneygrabbers with no loyalty. too many rules, all obsessed with needless safety, and in soccer, cant show any passion. those pansys in america wearing body armour. pffft. not real men.

gaelic football is the only football! plus the fact its been around waaaaaaaaaaaaaay before any of those dirty foreign sports

one difference: if your tackled by a rugby player without pads, you'll fall and maybe drop the ball.
if your tackled by an american football player without pads, you'll fall, you'll drop the ball, and you may break a few bones.

Stubert wrote:pffft, all your foreign, new sports. all overpaid, overhyped bunch of moneygrabbers with no loyalty. too many rules, all obsessed with needless safety, and in soccer, cant show any passion. those pansys in america wearing body armour. pffft. not real men.

gaelic football is the only football! plus the fact its been around waaaaaaaaaaaaaay before any of those dirty foreign sports

man speaks the truth

royals for Sam 09

id rather be a paki then a royal....

nice guy ly! xD

cmon the wee county!!!




id even go as far to say that a minor camoige team would move faster and hit harder then the average nfl team

he still plays then went on to do this
[img]http://soccerword.com/media/injury%20Cisse.jpg
[/img]

and he still plays. how is he a sissy playing a soft sport?