Size doesn't mean crap. And my analogy is completely accurate and appropriate. PErhaps my stance is particularly un-American and could be deemed seditious, but as this is a multi-national/cultural Guild, I've checked my patriotism at the door. I put my money on the Rugby guys every day of the week and 5 or 6 times on sunday. Now if we were dealing with Soccer/Un-American Football, I'd go with the NFL guys. I'd go with the NFL guys over damned near any sport (with the exception of PERHAPS the NHL [but that is even more debatable than the rugby issue], and any martial arts associations). Oh.... and Golf. Tiger Woods can lay the spank down.

The All-Blacks look like they'd kick the NFL's ass.... provided the Bears are not in it. We all know who would win there.... Da Bears.

This has nothing to do w/ patriotism or being a "good American". It has everything to do with simple facts.

The average weight of the All Blacks is 225 lbs. The average weight of The Washington Redskins is 250 lbs. The largest player on the All Blacks weighs about 265 lbs. The largest player on the Washington Redskins weighs in at 345 lbs.

I'm sorry, but NFL players are simply bigger and stronger. Now in a ridiculous argument like this (who would win in a fight???) one can only project and make assumptions. But I'll put my money on the bigger guys.

Mine's on the little guys :P

JAckie Chan v. <insert>

nuff said.


Size shmize.

Yeah but that's atypical. We can't assume that every Rugby player is a skilled fighter anymore than we can assume that every NFL player is a skilled fighter. All we can go off of are the facts in front of us. And the facts are clear:

NFL players > Rugby players

You are right, Jackie Chan is superhuman.... so that may be atypical. However, again, size does not necessarily equate to more power, nor is it an average. Take Olympic power lifters for example: They are (theoretically) the most powerful human beings on the face of the earth. They are dwarfed by NFL players and are generally dwarfed by the people in the Mr. Universe competitions and such. The Mr. Universe people may look stronger and more powerful, but aren't. Another example...... Volleyball players. I remember when the US DreamTeam Olympic basketball team came together they did a performance analysis of these big, tall, dudes and their vaunted jumping ability. On average, the US Volleyball team could outjump and outperform the NBA dudes in sheer physical tests. Not to say they could beat them at Basketball, just sheer jumping, leaping, bounding, etc.

Rugby is just as physical as NFL Football. I would bet any amount of money that man for man, the All Blacks could outperform, and probably out fight, on average, any NFL team. The fact that their respective sport is just as physical and they do it without armor means they are tougher (or stupider) than the NFL dudes. This means they can soak the damage as well as or better than the NFL dudes, they ARE smaller which means the thrust to weight ratio will favor the Rugby guys in a straight up performance test, they are more maneuverable and dextrous, which means in a straight up fight they would probably out perform their foes with more punches landed, kicks struck home, etc, and again... as they do the SAME job as the NFL dudes without armor they will soak what punishment the NFL dudes could dole out if they managed to actually strike home.

I await your rebuttal.

[quote:b7b9e49d87="Eveshka"]The fact that their respective sport is just as physical and they do it without armor[/quote:b7b9e49d87]

...and lots of little rests between plays.

I agree that Rugby players would kick NFL ass..... if you remove the NFL's body armor, of course.

They may be smaller... but they're jsut as strong(or stronger), faster, tougher, more dextrous.... and FASTER... forget fighting skills, they're just all around better.

Ok as someone who has been in a lot of fights. I will say that size does matter. Not that its the sole decisive factor in winning a fight, but it is however a factor. Sometimes though you may outskill someone they can over power you. Facts of life. As such are these:

Rugby < NFL - Only in terms of everything yall been arguing about
Jackie chan could </b>NOT<b> Kick Mike Tysons ass....First of all hes American....Havent yall learned? And jackie chan isnt even that bad ass. Steven Segal could probably take him.

Face it....Football, real american football, is just one more thing weve bested yall at.

Dont be dissapointed though cause you still better Tea and also that dude from Da Ali G show. Hes fucking awesome.

Syd...how do you always make me smile at the beginning of your posts and frown at the end?

lol

is that what i do then?

Steve Seagal was knocked out by Dolph Lundgren so he's not much cop either.

Can't remember his name, but there was a TINY little Kung Fu master on a documentary last month who'd hand Tyson his ass on a stick.

Size doesn't matter in a fight. If you have the skill, you can use your opponents size to your advantage. Your average Shaolin Monk is a tiny shortarse and I challenge you to find someone who could beat one of them in a fight

But I digress. My opinion still stands that Rugby players are far superior to NFL players for sheer ballsy no holds barred toughness.


And Syd, it's called Football because you play it with your feet! American Football should really be called American Rugby.

[quote:e1880b992a="Porter"]it's called Football because you play it with your feet! American Football should really be called American Rugby.[/quote:e1880b992a]


Errmm.. no. Rugby is short for Rugby Football. And there is quite a lot of kicking - I mean, yes there is also a lot of carrying, but watch a Rugby game and you'll see frequent kicking.

[quote:5d1b093e23="Julius Darrant"][quote:5d1b093e23="Porter"]it's called Football because you play it with your feet! American Football should really be called American Rugby.[/quote:5d1b093e23]


Errmm.. no. Rugby is short for Rugby Football. And there is quite a lot of kicking - I mean, yes there is also a lot of carrying, but watch a Rugby game and you'll see frequent kicking.[/quote:5d1b093e23]

I can clear this up once and for all. Rugby, the kind that the All Blacks play is short for Rugby Union - the sport of Kings (apparently). Then there's our code which is Rugby League (NRL = National Rugby League) which must not be confused with Australian Rules (AFL = Australian Football League, a pansy game which is only popular in Victoria). America plays Gridiron (can someone please confirm this is the game played at the superbowl? are the cheeseheads winning?) Soccer is the one with the round ball and lots of hot european guys (Zizou, phoar). Football is whatever you play locally, regardless of whether everyone else calls it soccer, gridiron, rugby, rugby or football.

I know nothing of these matters almighty Batty.