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.]
26 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!
16 marco // Mar 30, 2009 at 8:17 pm
man i have palyed both sports in college and rugby is awsome but football is way harder and take much more talent and football player wear protcetive gear to prolong there career bc it is a job and thats how they make a living but i will say this rugby guys are nuts and the game is very intese
17 brooks // Apr 9, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Well both sports produce amassing athletes, but remember different sports require different fitness and body types. NFL players may be huge, strong and have brilliant explosive strength but there is now way they could do what they do in a continuous game like rugby. The reason you don’t get rugby players shaped like NFL players is because they wouldn’t be able to get round the field after 5 mins of play. Most football players don’t do that much running apart from line backers or wide receivers and there is a break in play every 10 seconds if you got the big guys to run the whole game they wouldn’t be able to do it, that’s why rugby players are different. Its simple exercise physiology so stop embarrassing your selves by whining like idiots and just appreciate the positives of both sports.
18 Will // May 2, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I am from the US and have played both rugby and football. In my opinion, rugby is more noble, more intense, and much more difficult. There is much more going on and you have to think on your feet, the play doesn’t stop every 10 seconds and there is no huddle to set up the play. Also, in football your position is so specific, you only have to be good at one or two things to play. In rugby, you have to be good at running, tackling, throwing, catching, rucking, and you must be able to run for extended periods of time no matter what position you play. In football, it actually hurts more to get tackled because of the equipment, I think. Not that it means anything because I’ve gotten black eyes, fat lips, ridiculous bruises and cuts that wouldn’t be possible in football because of the padding. In football, I was a tight end and linebacker. In rugby I was a flanker, and I am 5′11 170 lbs. I would still destroy people. I miss playing rugby so much, I wish people in the US would get over themselves enough to admit that football and baseball aren’t the best sports and accept rugby as the great sport that it is…
19 Hare // May 3, 2009 at 2:52 am
Actually it all depends of posistion(meanng the height and weights) But in honesty, NFL players actually are fatter than Ruggs. A Rug having 6% fat compared to the on average NFLer having 18%.
And Ruggers are taller and more toned.
On average in the southern hemisphere is 190cm(6′3) and over 95kg(215lbs) with a average speed of 11sec in 100 meters(110+yards) cut it down to 40 yards then the speed should be 4.3 and under.
HAbana is the fastest which was bested by that Jamaican guy by only .3 seconds.
The avg NFLer size is actually 5′10 and 230lbs for a whole team with a speed of 4.6 on average. That’d be around 13 or more seconds in 110+yards.
The tallest athletes would be Basketballers on average standing 6′8-10″. most players under 6′4 dont get much notice by leagues unless they are really fast and skilled.
The heaviest Athletes are the Sumo who on average weight over 380+llbs. But you’d be surprised at how fast and healthy they are. Their average height is between 5′8(173 Sumo wrestlers around this height) and 6′5(45 Sumo wrestlers around this height and over)
Akebono would have been the largest official athlete at 6′8 and 517lbs. When Paul Wight(Bigshow) joined the WWE(F) he would’ve been named Largest athlete of all at 7′1 and 480lbs but being a Pro wrestler doesnt class him as an athlete. When he joined Boxing, he measured 7′0.25 and weiged 445lbs. At the end, he measured 7′0.25 and weighed over 390lbs.
In the northern hemishpere, the avg height, weight and peed of Ruggers is 188cm(6′2) and over 100kg(230lbs). The tallest in both North and South on avg stand between 6′6 and 6′10, but most teams prefer guys under 6′6 as they are faster, tougher and harder to take down. Tall guys are usually to lanky for a full game and cant move fast due to wind resistance.
They aren’t very strong either, weighing in at a common 120+kg (260lbs) with a speed of 12+ seconds(or over 4.5).
Of all players in the world. Jonah Lomu would have been the best player and the hardest to take down.
196cm tall(6′5), 126kg(270+lbs), speed of 10.8 seconds and needing over 8 and 60 meters to bring him down. Each just as big and tough as he is. Alot being bigger.
Actually, a Rugger would hit harder because they are moving faster and use more muscle and bone than plastic and padding.
The pads give more of a boom(looks flashy) but wont deal much pain or damage.
Muscle to muscle is what causes real pain.
Looking at the 9 boys so far who have been concussed in rugby in the first 5 months so far with 1 dying afterwards.
compared to the 90 men and boys who have been concussed and killed last year in Australia alone.
Rugby is tougher and has harder rules. In NFL you can throw the ball anywhere you like, rugby you have to rely on your guys behind and watch the guys in front.
But remember, Muscle and Padding is nothing without speed and skill.
If NFL allow clothesline then thats not skill. Thats just dumb brawling and im sure its against the rules to clothesline and lowblow. If not then its not really a good sport if 300lbs freaks are allowed to hurt another by any means.
Gridiron is a good sport, but its nothing next to Rugby.
BTW.
NFL= 90Million+ TVs watched the NFL ‘world championship’ with an average of over 120million+ possible fans.
Rugby= 3-4billion TVs watched the last World Cup. This number can be confirmed with the ratings the Olympics earned last year(Officially 4 billion).
20 Eric // Aug 17, 2009 at 6:50 pm
i find it annoying how some people think smaller people are not as potent. But i have been fighting in MMA for seven years in the welter weight class and iv fought some big guys in parking lots iv dropped guys well above six feet and iv left a few in the hospital and im five eight…..point is it DOSENT FUCKING MATTER HOW TALL YOU ARE if your willing to give it all you got and take some hits and when you do get hit do something about it don’t just whine like a bitch and yes i have played rugby and let me say this i love it most of the time im playing im numb i actually broke my rib a didn’t even know it till an hour after the game ended….play what ever sport makes you happy
21 Eric // Aug 17, 2009 at 6:54 pm
ps im a diffrent Eric
22 Chris // Sep 14, 2009 at 7:36 am
I’m a junior in Texas (THE state obsessed with high school and college football) and gonna be playing rugby for the first time this year, last year I was a defensive end, 5′7″ 160ish lbs…
The NFL may be all show, but I definitely think it requires more brain than brawn. They should drug test more, but there are some amazing, clean athletes in there.
Rugby overall just seems more natural, and I hope it gets more popular in America.
23 MrSinister // Sep 24, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Both sports are hard hitting contact sports. Its just a game. That’s all. NFL players are not pussies who need pads to take a hit. They are required by the league to wear them. Would you call a motocross rider or a rally race driver a puss for wearing a protective gear? Rugby players are not physically inferior nor are the superior athletes. This whole argument sounds like a bunch of childish dribble. Why not just start arguing over which one of your dad’s is the strongest. Many of you need to grow up. As for you knobs who feel the need to bash American’s you are just ignorant. There are millions of people in America with many different views and opinions. Your gross generalization of an entire country’s population is just uneducated nonsense. Do everyone a favor and keep your ignorant hate to yourself.
24 Sinc // Nov 21, 2009 at 7:56 am
For all those who think rugby is a “man’s” game just because the NFL uses pads and armour - well, it won’t be long before pro rugby players start using armour. The size of players is increasing every year and it’s not uncommon for props to be well over six foot and nearly 2o stone in weight and huge wingers now playing are massive. Bigger players mean greater impact at tackle and more career threatening injuries. Pro’s will start demanding protection to prolong their careers.
25 Dick Butkus // Dec 28, 2009 at 3:08 am
There was a day when American footballers didnt wear much padding, if any. And their helmets were jokes. Leather hats that many chose not to wear. When I played football (It was a long time ago), we had helmets and pads but the hits were still brutal. Rugby is a tough sport, and so is football. Different games altogether.
26 Jesse // Jan 26, 2010 at 10:11 am
Who is this Hare guy? I found his post pretty hilarious (completely untrue, but hilarious!). For one thing, there is no “average” rugby player or “average” football player. Body type is totally dependent on position and varies depending on what skill level you’re playing at as well. In any case, I’ve played both football and Rugby at a high level (played rugby at a provincial level in New Zealand, football for a D-1 school in the U.S.) and am now a strength and conditioning coach by trade. From my observations I would say that skill wise, most rugby players are a bit more well rounded. In football you have guys who play on the defensive line who would probably be eligible for the special Olympics, you also have offensive linemen who are as smart as any quarterback. The fitness is a bit different as well. Rugby guys tend to have a bit more endurance but football players are more explosive. Overall, even among a large number of international rugby players I know, football players are bigger, stronger and faster. There are a few reasons for this, one, football has been a big money sport for a long time and football trainers are miles ahead of rugby trainers in terms of building big, strong guys. The best rugby trainers in the world would be assistants to your average D-1 college football strength coach. Two, America has a disproportionate amount of giant, athletic black men. This is a result of accidental eugenics that occurred during our slave owning past. Like it or not, the sins of the past are helping us athletically in the present and finally, in America, football is the game for big, strong, fast athletes. We’re a country of over 330 million. We have states with more people than the combined population of New Zealand, Australia and South Africa.
BTW, in the most recent year where data was available for both the Super Bowl and The Rugby World Cup final game (2003), the numbers were Superbowl, 93 million viewers, World Cup final, 23 million viewers.
Leave a Comment