Page: 1 2 3 4 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 monaroC
Male, 18-29, Australia
 2 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 03, 2009 7:13:42 PM
All the deaths and serious injuries in the old American Football were actually caused by the rules still present in Rugby. America simply sterilized the rough and tumble game of rugby because they couldn't stomach the more brutal game. Americans always excel in a game that no one else plays.1) [b]The game of football was even more dangerous in its early days, before the invention of the forward pass[/b] 2) in 1904, when President Teddy Roosevelt threatened to ban the game due to 12 collegiate deaths. [b]At this period in time the game was really a North American variation of Rugby. The rules were changed, primarily altering the way players would now line up for the "scrimmage" - originally it had been a "scrum"[/b] 3) [b]Every year a few people still die playing although I think most of these now are either heat related or from hidden medical conditions[/b]. |
|
monaroC
Male, 18-29, Australia
2 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 03, 2009 7:11:38 PM
According to this report titled "Football similar to car crashes?" conducted by Virginia Tech in 2004 there were "five (that) came off the sidelines this season with concussions".
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/0...Queensland University also presented this report to the Journal of Sports Science and Medincine in 2004 that showed that there were "Forty-three consecutive concussions were recorded over three competitive seasons in 175 professional Rugby League players". This is 43 reported concussions per year.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15518305
|
|
 CZX11
Male, 13-17, Eastern US
171 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 01, 2008 2:06:53 PM
damn youtube wont let me watch :(
|
|
 blargendarg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
314 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:25:57 PM
this is as scientific as creationism or sociology.i think you know what i mean. |
|
sickandtired
Male, 18-29, Europe
51 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:28:12 AM
You're missing the point, Prime -
because of the startling differences in either tests, the result will *always* be falacious. At the very least (Even if two different athletes were used) you still have to have them squaring up against the same impact targets. There have to be as *few* variations as possible and there were too many to count in that so-called experiment.Also, how is comparing an Pro American Footballer to what looks like American weekend-rugby players? Yeah - that's science. Try sizing that monosyllabic meathead up against someone who's actually representative of a decent Rugby team (England/New Zealand/Australia/France/South Africa) |
|
 primetimekin
Male, 18-29, Southern US
7864 Posts
|
Monday, September 29, 2008 2:17:44 PM
"That means choose *one* person to charge at a given subject wearing pads, and use that same person to charge at the *same* thing without pads. (Also, if we're going to be really picky about it needs to be repeated a hell of a lot more than once.) God, they'll give their PhDs to anyone over there, won't they?"
They were repeated a lot. It just needs to be edited for TV.
And it cant be the same person. Part of this is, which sport has stronger athletes.
The lonious, but you see why the NFL needs pads. They said 1600 pounds could break a rib, imagine what 3 times that could do.
|
|
 Vagrant86
Male, 18-29, Western US
2556 Posts
|
Monday, September 29, 2008 9:00:28 AM
rwar that was cool but i think rugby will hurt more. |
|
 thelonious
Male, 30-39, Southern US
748 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 9:27:18 PM
If someone is tackling without pads, they are not going to put enough force into it to break their own ribs also. It's about positioning. With pads, you can do the mack truck. Of course, pads work both ways. That's the freakin miracle of physics. You can just hurl your body at your target, but guess what, they also have armor to disperse your blow over several square feet of surface. It's like rocket science. Or completely not. |
|
thelonious
Male, 30-39, Southern US
748 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 9:18:40 PM
That's about the most unscientific approach I have ever seen comparing the two. I've played both sports. There are much fewer injuries in American football than rugby. Reason? Pads. Having a much broader sensor impact range with the predesigined crash test dummy meant it could record more surface area impact. If I had to choose to be tackled every day for the rest of my life either in pads, with someone tackling me also in pads, or not, take a freaking guess. |
|
sickandtired
Male, 18-29, Europe
51 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 5:46:44 PM
Scientific comparison of this kind requires that the tests are *identical* with the obvious exception that pads would be worn in one of the tests. That means choose *one* person to charge at a given subject wearing pads, and use that same person to charge at the *same* thing without pads. (Also, if we're going to be really picky about it needs to be repeated a hell of a lot more than once.) God, they'll give their PhDs to anyone over there, won't they? Just a short disclaimer for any tedious people out there: I don't dispute the these padded-up goons hit harder than the non-padded goons. I've just never seen a poorer example of science in my life.
|
|
primetimekin
Male, 18-29, Southern US
7864 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 5:01:36 PM
 |
|
 Dogboy76
Male, 30-39, Europe
87 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 2:34:16 PM
davymid, forget that wuss Chaval, check out Brian Lima "The Chiropractor"
|
|
 manicwhite
Male, 18-29, Europe
162 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 2:05:31 PM
i question the validity of this experement. the footballer hit a supported dummy, the rugby player hit a person. not the same thing, so the results arn't directly comparible. the results and reasoning are probably right though. what we should realy be measuring is how much force is FELT by the players not how much is aplied. that i think would put rugby as a bigger hiting sport... although not the cleverest. |
|
 SmagBoy1
Male, 30-39, Southern US
802 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:44:25 PM
aevans, hard hitting, as I've demonstrated, has everything to do with economics. If you can hit harder than anyone in the world, where are you gonna do that hitting (if you want to get paid for it)? Where they pay the most for your services. Period. Certainly there are exceptions, but, overall, person for person, that's how professional athletics work. You play in the league that pays the most for your skills. If you can't make it in the NFL, for example, you got to the CFL or the Arena Football League. Same in soccer, if you can't play for a club that pays the most, you find a club that pays you as much as you can get for your skills. Economics modeling can predict all sorts of behavior and though my model isn't perfect, it is not stupid. Your dismissal of it, however, without any knowledge of the subject, is. |
|
 davymid
Male, 18-29, Europe
5553 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:31:55 PM
Actually Orionsbelt, it's more like this...
And remember, when you get hit by Sebastian Chabal, you're not wearing pussy body armour and a crash helmet. |
|
primetimekin
Male, 18-29, Southern US
7864 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 11:55:09 AM
"and hes not the best in the world that woud be darelle revis :P"
Lol.... Yeah no. That would be Patrick Surtain (still a Dolphin in my book)
Fine, we can all agree that argentinians are pussies right? |
|
 last_ninja
Male, 18-29, Western US
395 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 11:37:02 AM
rugby looks more painful |
|
 orionsbelt
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
151 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 11:28:56 AM
rugby is soooo tough dur dur dur
|
|
 domisgood
Male, 13-17, Europe
4299 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 11:16:34 AM
thenedman, quentin jammer isn't a QB hes a cornerback.and hes not the best in the world that woud be darelle revis :P |
|
 sheeshboy
Male, 40-49, Southern US
26 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 11:13:10 AM
These are 2 different games that demand different skills from their athletes. Rugby is non-stop action, and rugby players must be built for endurance. American football players are more about power, since theyonly have to perform in short bursts every 40 seconds or so. Two different types of athletes, but ya gotta be pretty tough to do either. |
|
thenedman
Male, 13-17, Europe
45 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 10:51:57 AM
primetime find me a footballer that can do that... and anyways how unfair was that. One of the best quaterbacks in the world against some mid level club players. They should haver got a real player like Sebastian Chabal, see what he does here. |
|
primetimekin
Male, 18-29, Southern US
7864 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 10:45:40 AM
aevans, its kinda hard to tell.Based on the information I've gotten he would run a 4.1 40 yard time. But this is based on his 100m which would give him more time to reach top speed. Habana Souths 100m is 10.5 I believe THe only other NFL player I could find their 100m time is retired.
Michael Bennett ran 100m in 10.18 and his 40 time was 4.13 But lets not forget about Deon "Primetime" Sanders who ran a 4.18 BUT ran a 4.4 BACKWARDS!! YES BACKWARDS |
|
 aevans1990
Male, 13-17, Europe
7 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 10:32:06 AM
"Well, I reckon it's pretty simple to figure out who are the hardest hitters without all this discussion. Look at who makes more money. If you're a faster, stronger, quicker, harder-hitting athlete, you're going to get the best money you can, right? Who makes more? Hands down, American footballers. If an Aussie or NewZealander could hit harder, he'd be playing in American football unless he was just an economic dimwit, right?"One of the stupidist posts i have ever read. You are attempting to draw a connection between money and who can hit harder... |
|
aevans1990
Male, 13-17, Europe
7 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 10:27:59 AM
Im quite sure habbana south african wing is faster than most NFL players. FAST |
|
domisgood
Male, 13-17, Europe
4299 Posts
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008 10:07:35 AM
yh i know its LT and he rocksbut at the moment i dont wanna be seeing chargers jersey's :P |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
