Monday, September 29, 2008 11:51:13 PM
Piratewillis has made probably the most sensible statement in the whole debate. Rugby, particularly league, is a flowing game, and therefore is one of endurance more than strength. A lot of the professional players are a lot smaller than you would think. Built like fireplugs, but have an endurance capability. American footballers probably do hit harder. But rugby players are not always trying to hit as hard as possible, as dangerous tackling is against the rules, due to the lack of padding. So it's like trying to compare an apple with an orange. Two totally different things.
Monday, September 29, 2008 9:53:26 PM
playing rugby was the best decision i made, i have played on a football and a rugby team both for schools and i would take rugby over football anyday
Monday, September 29, 2008 5:08:16 PM
I would say the difference between rugby and football is that football is a more civilized looking form of kicking the poo out of people. Rugby just kind of goes out there and plays.
T-Shirts
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
