Quote of the day coming from the mouth of Tony Reali after Mike Wilbon was foolish enough to state that the average pro rugger compares in size with David Beckham. Its obvious from that quote that Wilbon, in all of his experience and sports wisdom, doesn’t know the first thing about rugby. This whole conversation of course started with discussing the fact that Brisbane’s Ben Czislowsk found out that he has had a tooth embedded in his head since a collision on April 1 this year, after which they stitched him up… tooth included.
This of course leads me along a completely un-smooth transition into the meat of my post: South Africa wants their own haka. For those of you not in the know, the haka is a dance/ ritual that the New Zealand All Blacks perform before the start of every match. It’s based on a Maori warrior challenge to an enemy, and it changes a little bit every now and then… I guess to keep things fresh (here is an example of one). But after this year’s Tri-Nations tournament, in which the Sprinkboks crushed the All Blacks, South Africa wants to have a haka too.
“History books show the 1926 Springboks performed a Zulu war dance in major matches on their tour,” [Springboks coach Jake] White said.
Okay, sweet. So they did some dance a few times 80 friggin years ago and now they want to bring it back. Whatever, you want to dance… dance. But let’s put this into context. First of all, this in my mind would be comparable to one of the teams in the NFL deciding to do a Native American war dance before kickoff. How well d’ya think that would go over here in the US? Yea, not so well.
Second, let’s really not get too carried away here and why don’t we call the haka what it really is: choreography. Seriously, it’s a choreographed dance that grown men perform before playing a game at the highest competitive level. A dance. If South Africa is allowed to bring their own haka to the field, then why not everyone else? I’m sure that even the English can conjure up some strange Dark Ages traditional battle dance. And then before we know what happened, rugby will have turned into grown beasts of men acting out their own ridiculous version of the movie You Got Served before every game.
Just for fun though, I’d love one day to see a team, totally unannounced, bust out some steps to Young MC’s Bust a Move in response to the All Blacks and really point out how trivial the whole thing is. Sure the All Blacks would tear their heads off as soon as the game started, but it’d be fun to see nonetheless.
- Springboks aim to unveil own haka (BBC Sport)
[Editor’s Note - It’s probably a little weird to hear a former rugby player and current rugby fan diss the haka at all… I just think it’s overdone and too often the only part of rugby America gets a chance to see… and I am personally not a fan of New Zealand so I hate it.]
15 responses so far ↓
1 manu // Jul 17, 2007 at 11:42 pm
dumb Americans..the average height of an international rugby lock is 6′7″. An international rugby player cannot afford to haul his 300LB+ fatazz (the size of gridiron linemen who can hardly run) on the pitch for 80minutes non stop.. The average International rugby player is fitter, tougher, more skilled and more athletic than the average no talent NFL player..gridiron is a far inferior sport to rugby..that’s why its not popular anywhere in the world other than the U.S..that’s why they folded NFL Europe..dumb sh!tty inferior game
2 eric // Jul 18, 2007 at 6:54 am
No.. dumb American. Singular, not plural. Although there aren’t many of us there are some who know and play rugby here. Iif you actually read the post or the blog often enough you might know I’m a former player/ fan of rugby myself. I also don’t think the average sports fan in America is actually naive enough to think that ruggers are small in stature. The sports writer who made the comment was corrected moments later with the quote that serves as a title for this post.
As for the “300LB fatazz” this is where I get to pull out the dumb foreigner comment: most college and NFL lineman, although 280 lbs or more, have less body fat that you’d like to believe. Many of them can dunk a basketball and have surprising 4.7 type speed… let alone “hardly run”.
My point with laughing at Wilbon is that he obviously had no idea what he was talking about and needed to go back to the drawing board and get some facts straight before he commented about rugby.
Might I suggest the same here when it comes to you and football?
3 Steph // Jul 18, 2007 at 11:36 am
This was a good post. I laughed out loud. BTW, it may not be as great as seeing Bust a Move danced to, but Australia was denied the right to Waltzing Matilda in the 2003 Rugby World Cup if you recall, so some team has already tried to bring in their own kind “cultural” dance to rugby. Maybe you should petition their right to it for this year’s world cup.
4 manu // Jul 18, 2007 at 6:27 pm
5′10″ 165lbs is not even the average size of an international rugby player..Rodney So’oialo is one of, if not, the smallest number eights or backrower in the international scene..and he’s 6′2″ 220lbs and most likely zero ounce of fat..the overwhelming majority of NFL linemen are clinically obese..they’re fatazzes and the bulge shows..most can’t sprint a 100meters as seen with Haloti Ngata..
5 eric // Jul 18, 2007 at 6:52 pm
manu… you’re killin me. Please, please, read the actual post before you comment on just the title… twice now.
Excerpt from above post:
“Its obvious from that quote that Wilbon, in all of his experience and sports wisdom, doesn’t know the first thing about rugby.”
I was making fun of a sports writer for talking out of his ass and being completely and totally wrong about rugby as a sport. Everyone knows ruggers are much bigger than that… thus the humor in the quote.
Similarly, you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the NFL. Lineman are fat… awesome argument.
What about defensive ends, linebackers, tight ends, fullbacks, running backs and defensive backs; most of whom range between 6′0″ and 6′7″, 220lbs to 260lbs with less than 5% body fat on them and run 40 yards in 4.3 to 4.5 seconds?
Please, you are out of your element here. I know both rugby and football very well and here’s a startling fact: NFL players could not, without a great deal of training, play competitively in international rugby.
Alternatively, international ruggers could not, without a great deal of training, play in the NFL. Wow, shocking news. Let’s move on.
6 Krafish // Jul 23, 2007 at 8:56 am
http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1185078440/Rugby_Player_Decks_his_Teammate_in_Celebration
7 Naaamiko // Oct 27, 2007 at 12:13 pm
The Facts:
Rugby players dont take steriods because of random drugs testing. They have to have very high fitness, and have low fat high muscle percentage to be able to compete competitavly on a international level.
NFL do take steriods, because steriod traces leave the body after 5 days. NFL Assosication tells each player they will have a drugs test 2 weeks before it happens. They are much stronger than Rugby players, and as fast. However, they have less fitness because they only have to cover 5-10 yards, where as rugby players need to run for the full 80 minutes.
NFL could not compete in rugby, however rugby players could compete well in NFL without the need of steriods. Football players play in NFL as kickers, football players couldnt compete in rugby.
8 eric // Oct 27, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Well, I really think it sucks to generalize a sport like you and manu have. Also, I refuse to believe that the NFL’s top athletes couldn’t improve their fitness levels with a “great deal of training” as I suggested before.
Look, I’ve played both football and rugby, and forgetting completely about the fitness you also have to keep in mind that each sport has a certain level of sport-specific “intelligence” that takes years of competition to develop and comes out in split-second decisions that makes the difference between good players and great players in both sports.
All I said, and I stand by it, is that if you took the top athletes in the NFL, they would need 2 or more years of training to be able to be competitive in International rugby. Similarly, it would take an International rugger 2 or more years of training to develop the specific skills needed in the NFL. In each sport, you have guys who have developed certain skill sets by playing the sport for 10, 20, and sometimes 30 years. That doesn’t just transfer from one field to another.
Athleticism, fitness, and strength are what make people good athletes. Specific skills, sport-specific “intelligence”, and experience is what it takes to compete at the top level of any sport.
9 Jamarcus jones // Oct 30, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I feel rugby players are girls
football is a sport with ar more physical contact and a much much faster more intense game. Any one who says football players are fat asses are dumb, becasue i dont think fatasses can bench 500 lbs like 5 times.
10 joeyc // May 22, 2008 at 4:33 am
Ive never played rugby competitively but I love the sport. I’m 20 and going to uni this year. I’m considering trying out for the rugby team. The only problem is i am 167cm tall and weigh about 11 stone 1o lbs, which is about 165 lbs. Does anyone think i have a hope in hell of making the grade?
11 tui,tupou // Aug 19, 2008 at 2:37 pm
if you say NFL is more physical and more intense than rugby than way is NFL players wearing all that protection gear for?are they afraid that they might get hurt or break something?maybe if NFL players didnt have all that gear than maybe we can its more physical and intense than rugby, but until than i think NFL is more for pussys and rugby is for real man……..
12 Jeremiah // Sep 18, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Great article Eric. There seem to be very few readers commenting who realize that both sports are filled with amazing athletes whose physical prowess far surpasses anything most of us will ever accomplish. I used to play football in High School and I stumbled across your article trying to find out if I’m big enough to play rugby at 5′11″ and 172lbs. To tell you the truth, I’m rather scared, but practice is tonight, so I’m going for it. Take care.
13 ruggger // Nov 12, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Any contact sport, where you have to wear a kevlar vest and a hard hat for ‘protection’ is not a man’s game. Straight and simple. Be a man, play without pads. Getting plowed by a 330lb man with a kevlar vest on; no problem. Without it…i think someone’s gonna need a tampon.
14 Rugby fans are ignorant cunts // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:33 am
Rugby fans who think there sport is tougher because they don’t wear pads? m8 u have never played american football, u put on the pads and run the ball, ull shit urself after ur first hit, u cant just chuck the ball away as soon as ur gonna get tackled as in rugby, “high tackles” and all this shit, there is almost no rules in tackling in football, u can fuking clothes line people, and it DOES hurt. there was 8 people disabled last year in profesional and high league football. U play the game and then u earn the right to speak in this conversation
15 Gp // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:36 am
1. Fact NFL has random drug tests as well, you just can’t handle the athleticism in the NFL, you can try and argue, but football is the newer sport, the harder hitting sport, the more skilled sport and you people can’t take it.
UNLUCKY!
Leave a Comment